MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs ADMINISTRATOR, RESIDUAL PROPERTIES and others
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a constitutional petition filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Sadiq. The petitioner sought to challenge an order dated 13-10-1979 passed by the Administrator, Residual Properties, Multan Division, which remanded a dispute concerning a building site to the Deputy Administrator. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the petitioner possessed the standing to invoke constitutional jurisdiction to challenge an interlocutory remand order in a property dispute. The High Court, relying on the principles established in Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, held that the petitioner was not entitled to invoke such jurisdiction, noting that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient grievance or legal standing to warrant interference. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, finding that the petitioner failed to make out a case for leave to appeal. The key principle reaffirmed is that constitutional jurisdiction is not to be invoked against interlocutory administrative orders where the petitioner fails to establish a compelling legal grievance or entitlement.
- Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked to challenge an interlocutory remand order passed by an administrative authority?
- Is a petitioner entitled to constitutional relief if they fail to establish a sufficient legal grievance regarding an administrative remand order?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--A learned Judge of the Lahore High Court by judgment, dated 5-7-84 dismissed the Constitution petition filed by Muhammad Sadiq in which he had prayed for quashment of an order, dated 13-10-1979 passed in review by the Administrator, Residual Properties, Multan Division, Multan whereby the case was remanded to the Deputy Administrator, Residual Properties, Multan. The dispute pertained to a building site.
2. The High Court after taking into consideration the relevant facts and the dictum laid down by this Court in the case of Raunaq Ali etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 SC 236) observed that Muhammad Sadiq was not entitled to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Sound reasons were given by the learned Judge.
3. ' Therefore, we don't think the petitioner has made out a case for leave to appeal. The petition is accordingly dismissed.