UMER GUL vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Transport, Karachi
This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking the implementation of an appellate order passed under the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969 by the Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority Sindh, as well as an order of the Ombudsman. During the proceedings, the Additional Advocate General submitted a statement with annexures establishing that the impugned order had already been fully implemented by the competent authorities, leaving nothing further to be adjudicated. The Court held that a constitutional petition under the constitutional jurisdiction is not maintainable for the execution or implementation of orders passed by administrative authorities, tribunals, or subordinate forums, as the High Court does not function as an executing court for such bodies. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that the constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked solely as a substitute for execution proceedings of administrative or tribunal orders, and dismissed the petition in limine.
- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable for the execution or implementation of orders passed by administrative authorities or tribunals?
- Does the High Court act as an executing court for orders passed by tribunals or authorities other than the Supreme Court?
- What is the effect of the implementation of the impugned administrative order during the pendency of a constitutional petition?
- Rule 96-A, Motor Vehicle Rules 1969
- Article 187, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' In this Constitutional petition the petitioner has sought the following relief:
(a) To direct the respondent No,5 to implement the orders passed by its appellate authority respondent No, 2% Ann. "F" in appeal under Rule 96-A of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969 and so also passed by the Honourable Ombudsman upholding the orders of respondent No, 2 being lawful authority, as the board of respondent No,3'or respondent No,5 after passing of the orders did not challenge the same in accordance with law, and allow the petitioner the route permits for the required necessity of the route.
(b) Any other relief this Honourable Court may deem necessary.
(c) Cost of petition.
2. From the perusal of the memo. Of petition and the prayer reproduced hereinabove, it is absolutely, clear that the petitioner has approached this Court for implementation/execution of the order of the Secretary to Government of. Sindh, Labour and Transport Department/Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority Sindh. Mr. Sarwar, learned Addl. A.G. Has filed a statement along with Annexures `A-1' and `A-2' according to which, the order of the Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority has been implemented and nothing further remains to be done on the part of the concerned authorities.
3. Even otherwise, from the perusal of the prayer clause, it transpires that the petitioner has approached, this Court for implementation/execution of the order of the Chairman. Provincial Transport Authority Sindh, and the Ombudsman. This Court does not act as an executing Court of any authority/Court or Tribunal except the Supreme Court in view of the provisions of Article 187 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
4. Although the constitutional petition is not maintainable yet after issuance of notices to the concerned authorities, it has been brought on record that the order in B question has been implemented and nothing remains to be done further. Accordingly, this constitutional petition stands dismissed in limine .
Cited by 6 cases
- Mehfooz Akhtar & others vs Oil & Gas Regulatory Authority & others 2023 SHC 415, 2024 CLC 1054
- Mehfooz Akhtar and others vs Oil & Gas Regulatory Authority and others 2023 PLJ Karachi 89
- SAAD AMANULLAH KHAN vs IVTII-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, (SOUTH),KARACHI and 3 others PLD 2008 Karachi 499.
- SAAD AMANULLAH KHAN Versus IVTH-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, (SOUTH), KARACHI 2008 PLD 499
- SAAD AMANULLAH KHAN vs IVTH-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, (SOUTH), KARACHI and 3 others 2009 PLJ Karachi 47
- Mrs. Naina Syed, Mst. Naureen Ahmad Tarar vs The Secretary Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training and others, Federal Board of Revenue and others 2025 IHC 36