MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN vs ATTAI KHAN And Other
The petitioner, Chairman of the Local Council, sought leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court order that dismissed a constitutional petition as withdrawn. The underlying petition alleged that the petitioner had colluded with a statutory functionary to delay a no-confidence motion. During the High Court proceedings, the statutory functionary undertook to convene the meeting within ten days. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the court should not have accepted such an undertaking from the functionary in his absence and that the functionary lacked the legal authority to make such a commitment. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the dismissal of a petition as withdrawn does not raise a serious question of law. The Court reasoned that the statutory functionary's undertaking is not a matter for constitutional jurisdiction at this stage. If the functionary exceeds their jurisdiction or power while implementing the undertaking, the petitioner retains the right to pursue separate, appropriate legal remedies. The Court declined to prematurely examine the validity of the functionary's statement.
- Does a constitutional petition dismissed as withdrawn raise a substantial question of law for the Supreme Court?
- Can a court interfere with a statement or undertaking made by a statutory functionary during writ proceedings before that undertaking is implemented?
- Is a separate legal remedy available if a statutory functionary exceeds their jurisdiction while implementing an undertaking given to a court?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, Chairman, Local Council, Inayat Abad, Tehsil and District Mansehra, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 15-12- 1985, whereby a constitutional petition filed by the respondents was dismissed as withdrawn on a statement made by the statutory functionary, respondent No.7.
2. The Vice-Chairman and the Councillors of the Local Council Inayat Abad filed a constitutional petition claiming that a no confidence motion had been moved against the petitioner on 23-10- 1985 and the statutory functionary, respondent No.7, was in collusion with the Chairman and had not called the meeting within 15 days as required by law. The respondent No.7 was specially summoned by the Court, who appeared and made a statement that he would convene the meeting within ten days from 15-12-1985. The petitioner was not, at that stage, served nor was he present. On this statement in the nature of an undertaking by the statutory functionary, the writ petitioners did not press their petition which was dismissed in limine as withdrawn.
3. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal on the ground that being party to the proceedings, no undertaking should have been got recorded from the statutory functionary and the statutory functionary could not commit in law to call for that meeting nor could the constitutional petition be disposed of in this manner.
4. We do not consider that this petition for leave to appeal raises any serious question for consideration of this Court. The constitutional petition has been dismissed as withdrawn. The statutory functionary has given only an undertaking. If in implementing that undertaking he commits an excess either in the exercise of jurisdiction or in that of power possessed by him, the petitioner will have a separate appropriate remedy against it. To prevent the statutory functionary from making a statement which he wants to make, is not the domain of the constitutional jurisdiction and it is premature to examine the correctness or the validity of the statement made by him. Leave to appeal is refused.