NIAMAT KHAN And Another vs THE STATE Through Enforcement Staff, Evacuee Property, Lahore And Other
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' constitutional petition against orders passed by settlement authorities. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court rightly declined to entertain a second constitutional petition after the petitioners' earlier writ petition and subsequent restoration applications were dismissed for non-prosecution and gross negligence. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is discretionary in nature and that substantial reasons were provided by the High Court for refusing to entertain the second petition due to the petitioners' gross negligence. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the High Court's discretionary constitutional jurisdiction will not be exercised in favour of a party that has been grossly negligent in pursuing earlier remedies.
- Whether the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction is of a discretionary nature?
- Can a second constitutional petition be entertained when an earlier writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and lack of diligence?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's refusal to exercise discretionary constitutional jurisdiction based on gross negligence?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This petition for special leave to appeal is from the order dated 15-3-1987 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the constitutional petition of the petitioners from the orders of the settlement authorities was dismissed.
2. Prior to the filing of the present writ petition the petitioners had filed another writ petition (W.P. No. 43-R/75) which was dismissed on 6-5-1975 for want of prosecution as well as for failure on the part of the petitioners to deposit the process-fee. On 21-6-1975 they moved an application for restoration of the writ petition but it was dismissed in default on 3-7-1975. They then filed another application for the restoration of the writ petition but before it could come up for hearing they filed the present constitutional petition. On 28-2-1979 they withdrew the application for the restoration of the earlier writ petition. The High Court declined to entertain the present constitutional petition inter alia on the ground that the petitioners had been grossly negligent in pursuing the earlier writ petition and the applications for the restoration thereof.
3. It is to be noticed that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is of a discretionay nature and the High Court has given substantial reasons for not entertaining the second constitutional petition. We are therefore not prepared to interfere with the order of the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.