Messrs SHIFA MEDICO vs THE METROPOLITAN CORPORATION OF LAHORE and another
This matter concerned a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition challenging Octroi charges levied by a lower functionary of the Metropolitan Corporation of Lahore's lessee/agent. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly declined to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction due to the petitioner's failure to exhaust statutory remedies and approach higher authorities within the local government structure before filing the writ petition. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, refusing leave to appeal. The Court affirmed the principle that constitutional jurisdiction should generally not be exercised unless the view of the subordinate tribunal or authority, before whom the grievance was agitated under the relevant statute, is known. It was also held that there is no bar for a higher functionary to seek assistance, such as a report or opinion, from a lower co-ordinate functionary when addressing a grievance.
- Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked without first exhausting statutory remedies?
- Is it necessary to approach higher authorities within a statutory framework before filing a writ petition?
- Can a higher functionary seek a report or opinion from a lower functionary when addressing a grievance?
- Should a High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction without knowing the view of the subordinate authority where the grievance originated?
- Sections 153 to 158, Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner's writ petition. It had arisen out of the charge of Octroi by the respondents' side on a commodity brought within the limits of Lahore Metropolitan Corporation.
2. ' Learned counsel has stated that a Clerk of respondent No,2, who is lessee/agent of respondent No,1, took the action impugned before the High Court and further that the matter was not brought before either the higher functionaries of respondent No,2 and/or repondent No,1, nor the complaint was made to any other higher authority.
3. ' Learned Judge in the High Court while dismissing the writ petition amongst others made the following observation :-- "One of the principles governing the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by this Court is that it would like to know the view of the subordinate Tribunal or the Authority before whom the matter or grievance was agitated in terms of the statute out of which the impugned proceedings arose."
4. ' It was also noticed that the provisions contained in sections 153 to 158 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, put the Government under obligation to attend to the grievances like the one agitated in the High Court.
5. ' It is a fact that except for documents showing the charge of the Octroi by a lower functionary of respondent No,2 there was no determination by any higher functionary about the objections raised by the petitioners. The reason being that none was approached before approaching the High Court.
6. ' Learned counsel has explained that after the High Court judgment the petitioners have approached the concerned authority, but the matter has been referred to the Local Taxation functionary for report and/or action. In this behalf he thinks that the case should not have been sent down and that the petitioners' grievances should have been straightaway examined. All these are procedural formalities. In a case like the present one, there is nothing to prevent the higher functionary from seeking assistance from lower co-ordinate functionary in the form of report and/or opinion.
7. ' After hearing the learned counsel, at some length, we find no justification for interference. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.