MAHMOOD and 9 others vs AHMAD YAR and 5 others
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of the petitioners' writ petition concerning the allotment of State land. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' writ petition and the respondents' pending writ petition, which arose from the same dispute, should be adjudicated independently or consolidated for a joint disposal. The Supreme Court observed that while the petitions were not strictly counter-petitions in a chronological sense, the subject matter was sufficiently intertwined that their joint disposal would best serve the ends of justice. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed the same, and remanded the case to the High Court with the direction that it be heard afresh alongside the respondents' pending Writ Petition No. 3527 of 1985. The key principle laid down is that where two writ petitions involve the same subject matter and dispute, the interests of justice are best served by their joint disposal to ensure consistent adjudication.
- Should two writ petitions involving the same subject matter be disposed of jointly to meet the ends of justice?
- Can the Supreme Court remand a case to the High Court for joint disposal with a pending writ petition?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioners' Writ Petition. It had arisen out of the allotment of State land.
2. ' We have heard the learned counsel for both the contesting parties. They felt aggrieved by the orders of the Board of Revenue. The respondents' Writ Petition is still pending in the High Court while the petitioners' writ petition having been dismissed they have sought leave to appeal.
3. Although it is not possible to hold that keeping in view the chronological order in which various orders in this matter were passed, it would not be correct to say that the two Writ Petitions in the High Court were to be treated as counter Writ Petitions to each other; yet, both the learned counsel have agreed that the subject-matter of dispute in both of them was such that their joint disposal would have met the ends of justice.
4. ' We agree with this approach to the dispute involved in this case and convert this petition into appeal and allow the same with the order of remand. This case shall be heard, afresh with Writ Petition No,3527 of 1985 filed from the respondents' side and both shall be disposed of together.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.