JAHANGIR HUSSAIN vs MAYOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RAWALPINDI, And OTHER
This constitutional petition was filed by a contractor challenging an order passed by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, which set aside a municipal corporation's formula for levying a "transfer fee" on property transactions, ruling instead that the fee must be based on the price stated in the deed. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner's order was passed without jurisdiction and without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, asserting that the petitioner possessed adequate alternative remedies, specifically the right to file a representation before the Government of the Punjab under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, or to initiate a civil suit. The Court held that because the petitioner had access to efficacious alternative remedies under the statutory framework, the writ petition was not maintainable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming the principle that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked when adequate alternative legal remedies remain unexhausted.
- Is a writ petition maintainable when the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Can a constitutional petition be dismissed in limine if the petitioner has not exhausted statutory remedies?
- Does the availability of a civil suit constitute an adequate alternative remedy barring the exercise of writ jurisdiction?
- Section 139, Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979
- Section 153, Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979
- Section 156, Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979
- Section 173, Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979
ORDER
Through this Constitutional Petition Jahangir Hussain petitioner, who is a Contractor of respondent No. 2, has challenged the order dated 20-1-1993 passed by Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against the extent of levy of "transfer fee" has been accepted and it has been held that the transfer fee shall be levied on the basis of price mentioned in the relevant deed itself and not on the basis of formula laid down by the Corporation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the petitioner is patently without jurisdiction; that before decision of the appeal the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of being heard; that while taking the view to the effect that the transfer fee in accord with the formula in question in appeal, cannot be charged from the appellant, learned Commissioner has failed to take into consideration the relevant statutory provisions on the subject, and therefore, the same is illegal and without a lawful authority. Learned Assistant Advocate- General, Punjab has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an efficacious alternate 'remedy of filing of a petition/representation before Government of the Punjab under the provisions of section 139, 153, 156 and 173 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, and can also file a civil suit for redress of his grievance, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. In reply to the argument of the learned Law Officer, learned counsel for the petitioner states that as the order is patently without jurisdiction, the writ petition is competent.
3.1 have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. There is no denying of the fact that as per provisions of sections 139, 153, 156 and 173 the petitioner has a remedy before the Government for the redress of his grievance, which cannot be said to be inadequate and-inefficacious. Similarly, the petitioner can also file a civil suit for redress of his grievances, hence, in view of the alternate efficacious remedies available to the petitioner, as held in case of Raja A Muhammad Ramzan and 21 others v. Union Council, Bajnial and another (CPSLAs. Nos. 172 and 173/92 (decided on 19-5-1992) reported as previous judgment), the writ petition is not maintainable and hence, is dismissed in limine.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ AKHTAR vs SUB-REGISTRAR K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 311
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ AKHTAR vs SUBREGISTRAR and 7 others 1996 PLD Lahore 180
- AZHAR ALI KHAN vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RAWALPINDI Through Administrator 1997 CLC 1486