HASAN DIN CHISHTI vs CHIEF ENGINEER, WAPDA
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of West Pakistan, which dismissed a constitutional petition filed under Article 98 of the Constitution. The petitioner, formerly a Mechanical Foreman in WAPDA, was removed from service and initially challenged his removal through a civil suit, which was dismissed on 12th November 1962. Instead of appealing that decision, he subsequently filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking the same relief. The core legal question was whether a party who elects to pursue one alternative remedy and fails can subsequently invoke writ jurisdiction for the same grievance. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly refused to interfere, as a person who elects to avail of one alternative remedy cannot agitate the same questions a second time after failing to obtain relief. The key principle laid down is that the pursuit and exhaustion of an elected legal remedy bars a subsequent constitutional petition for the identical relief.
- Whether a person who has elected to avail of one alternative remedy can agitate the same questions through a constitutional petition after failing to obtain relief?
- Can the High Court refuse to interfere under Article 98 of the Constitution when the petitioner previously filed a civil suit for the same relief?
- Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-This is a petition for Special Leave to Appeal from an order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan dismissing a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution.
2. The petitioner, who was a Mechanical Foreman in the WAPDA, it appears, was removed from service. He filed a suit to challenge the validity of the order removing him. This suit was dismissed on the 12th November 1962, on the ground that the petitioner held a purely temporary appointment and, his service could be terminated at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason. He preferred no appeal against this order but filed a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution in the High Court on the 15th of November 1965, seeking the same reliefs.
3. The High Court refused to interfere on the ground that a person, who had elected to avail of one of the alternative remedies available to him, could not be entitled to agitate the same questions for a second time after he had failed to obtain the remedy which he had elected to seek.
4. We are of the opinion that the High Court acted upon sound judicial principles in refusing relief by way of a writ in the circumstances of this case. No just exception can --taken to the order of the High Court. We see no ground interfere. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 7 cases
- FIDA MUHAMMAD and another vs GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Agriculture, Peshawar and 3 others 1999 PLC (C.S.) 180
- MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL, METER READER WAPDA, LAHORE Versus REGISTRAR OF INDUSTRYWISE TRADE UNIONS, ISLAMABAD 1995 PLC 306
- Ch. ABDUL GHANI And 2 Other vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB Through 1987 PLD Lahore 440
- Ch. ABDUL GHANI and 2 others vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning Department and 3 OTHERS 1987 PLD Lahore 440
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB AND 13 OTHERS vs THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, LYALLPUR 1971 PLD Lahore 664
- GHIASUL HAQ AND OTHERSs vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU 1980 PLD SC (A J & K) 5
- S. WARIS MUJTABA vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL 1985 MLD 973