GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus UNION COUNCIL KHOKHRAPAR
This matter arises from a petition filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking leave to appeal against the alleged failure of the High Court of Sindh to decide or grant interim relief in a pending Constitutional petition challenging a resolution and notification of no confidence passed against the petitioner as Naib Nazim/Member of Union Council Khokhrapar. The core legal question was whether a petition for leave to appeal is maintainable against the mere pendency or inaction of the High Court where no final judgment, decree, order, or sentence has been rendered. The Supreme Court held that under Article 185(3), a petition for leave to appeal is maintainable only against a judgment, decree, order, or sentence of the High Court, and no substantial question of public importance under Article 212(3) was made out. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction under Article 185(3) cannot be invoked against procedural delay or mere pendency of a matter before the High Court in the absence of an adjudicatory order.
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable under Article 185(3) of the Constitution against the mere pendency or delay of a case in the High Court?
- Does the failure of the High Court to grant or refuse interim relief constitute an order appealable under Article 185(3) of the Constitution?
- What constitutes a maintainable judgment, decree, order, or sentence under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
ORDER
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.‑‑‑ Through this petition, petitioner Ghulam Hussain has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution") for grant of leave to appeal on the ground that Constitutional Petition No.D‑264 of 2003 filed by him before High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad is not being heard since last five months wherein he has challenged the resolution dated 15‑9‑2003 whereby vote of no confidence was passed against him through secret ballot and in consequence whereof he has been unseated and notification about his removal has been issued by the respondent.
2. Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that since the Constitutional petition filed by petitioner challenging his removal by way of vote of no confidence is pending adjudication since 21‑9‑2003 before the High Court and is being adjourned without any justification so much so even interim relief is neither granted nor refused. Thus finding no other alternative, the petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
3. Admittedly, the petition is pending before the High Court and no order of any sort has been passed so far. It is only against any judgment, decree; order or sentence of High Court petition for leave to appeal is maintainable under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. Moreover no substantial question of public importance within the contemplation of clause (3) of Article 212 of the Constitution has been made out to justify grant of leave in this case. As such, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
M.H./G‑10/S Petition dismissed.