WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others vs COMMISSIONER, HAZARA DIVISION and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the Peshawar High Court's dismissal of a writ petition filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The Authority challenged a supplementary award issued by the Commissioner, Hazara Division, regarding compensation for land acquired for the Tarbela Dam, which was initiated following a directive from the Wafaqi Mohtasib. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had failed to exhaust an alternative adequate remedy. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the petitioner had not availed itself of the representation process before the President of Pakistan as provided under the relevant law. The Court held that the grant of relief under writ jurisdiction is discretionary, and where an adequate statutory remedy exists—specifically the representation mechanism—the High Court is justified in refusing to interfere. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the availability of an alternative remedy precludes the invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
- Can a writ petition be dismissed if the petitioner fails to avail of an alternative statutory remedy?
- Is the grant of relief under writ jurisdiction discretionary?
- Does the existence of a representation mechanism before the President under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtsib (Ombudsman) Order 1983 constitute an adequate alternative remedy?
- Article 32, Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtsib (Ombudsman) Order 1983
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.---This petition by WAPDA seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 22-1-1990, dismissing the Authority's writ petition to the effect that the supplementary award rendered by the Commissioner, Hazara Division, awarding compensation in respect of the property of Abdul Diyan Shah, respondent No,3 herein, and directive issued by Wafaqi Mohtasib in this behalf, be declared as without lawful authority.
2. The facts are that the property comprising land and houses belonging to respondent No,3 alongwith some other area owned by Akazi Tribe situate in tribal area of Manshera District was acquired for the purposes of Tarbela Dam ' and compensation assessed therefor was paid by the Authority to the Deputy Commissioner, Manshera, for onward transmission to the land-owners. The Deputy Commissioner passed on the amount to 48 Tribal Jerga members in their representative capacity for its disbursement to the individual owners. Respondent No,3 complained to the Chief Martial Law Administrator and then to Wafaqi Mohtsib that he was 'not paid anything in respect of his property. On a direction issued by the Wafaqi Mohtsib, the Commissioner, Hazara Division, made a supplementary award dated 29- 9-1981 assessing the compensation for the property of respondent No,3.
3. The Authority filed a writ petition in the Peshawar High Court, challenging the validity of the supplementary award and the directive of the Wafaqi Mohtsib. The High Court relied upon Article 32 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtsib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, which ordains that any person aggrieved by an order of Wafaqi Mohtsib may within 30 days file a representation before the President of Pakistan, who may pass such order thereon, as deemed fit by him. The High Court maintained that the remedy provided by Article 32 was an adequate remedy which the petitioner failed to avail of, consequently, the writ petition was dismissed on 22-1-1990.
4. After hearing the learned counsel in support of this petition, we do not feel persuaded to differ, with the High Court. Grant of relief under writ jurisdiction is discretionary. In exercise of this discretion, the High Court chose not to interfere with the order of the Wafaqi Mohtsib, and the consequential supplementary award made by the Commissioner as another adequate remedy under Article. 32 was available to the Authority. In this view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the High Court's refusal to issue the writ prayed for.
' There is no substance in this petition. Leave prayed for is refused and the .