HUMAIR HAYAT KHAN ROKHRI and others vs GOVERNMENT Of THE PUNJAB
This matter originated from a petition challenging a government notification dated 15-8-1993, which was simultaneously being contested through multiple writ petitions pending before the Lahore High Court. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court expressing concern over delays in the High Court proceedings, specifically noting that a judge had ordered a rehearing of the case due to the unavailability of notes. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether it should intervene in a matter where parallel constitutional petitions were already pending and being adjudicated in the High Court. The Supreme Court declined to interfere, holding that it would be advantageous to await the High Court's decision on the constitutional and legal points raised. The Court disposed of the petition while expressing an expectation that the High Court would resolve the pending matters without further delay. The key principle established is that the Supreme Court will generally avoid exercising its jurisdiction when identical issues are actively pending before a High Court, preferring to allow the High Court to conclude its proceedings first.
- Should the Supreme Court entertain a petition when identical writ petitions are already pending before a High Court?
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to await a High Court's decision on constitutional and legal points before intervening?
ORDER
' Learned counsel for the petitioners states that after the issuance of impugned Notification dated 15-8-1993, a number of writ petitions were filed in the Lahore High Court, challenging the above Notification. The learned Judge in Chamber heard the case on 11 dates, but ultimately passed the following order:- "The notes are not available, so the case would have to be re-heard afresh. Adjourned to 5-12- 1993."
The writ petitions relating to the same cause and claiming the same relief, as claimed in this petition, are pending in the Lahore High Court. Some constitutional and legal points have been raised in the petition, therefore, we may have the advantage of the decision of the High Court. The anxiety of the learned Counsel for the petitionets is that delay in the disposal of the petitions will frustrate the very object of the petition.
2. We, expect and hope that the learned High Court will decide the matter without further delay. In view of the above observation, the learned Counsel lox the petitioners does not press this petition at present. Resultantly, this petition stands disposed of. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.