MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 3-12-1983, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging the order of the Member, Board of Revenue dated 29-5-1983. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to consider a contention regarding a departmental directive dated 13-7-1976 that was never raised before the Board of Revenue. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly declined to examine a plea not raised before the lower forum, while noting that the petitioner's remedy lay in agitating the matter before the Member, Board of Revenue in accordance with law. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a constitutional petition cannot be used to introduce new factual or legal contentions that were not raised before the subordinate forum whose order is being challenged.
- Whether the High Court can entertain a new contention in constitutional jurisdiction that was not raised before the subordinate tribunal?
- Does a petitioner have the right to agitate a matter before the Member, Board of Revenue in accordance with law after the dismissal of a constitutional petition?
ORDER
S. A. NUSRAT, J.-- Leave to appeal is sought from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 3-12- 1983 whereby a Constitutional Petition of the petitioner challenging the order of the Member, Board of Revenue dated 29-5-1983 was dismissed.
2. The contention raised before -the learned High Court was that the case of the petitioner was covered by a directive dated 13-7-1976 issued by the Colonies Department. However, on perusal of the record it was found by the learned High Court that no such contention was raised before the Member, Board of Revenue nor his attention was drawn to the memorandum in question. In the circumstances the learned High Court refused to go in to this question in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. However, while dismissing the petition it was observed that remedy of the petitioner lay in agitating the matter before the Member, Board of Revenue in accordance with law.
3. We heard the learned counsel who was unable to controvert the above finding of the learned High Court. We find no merits in this petition, which is dismissed accordingly.