Pakistan Case Law
1994 SCMR 1484

Raja MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 21 others vs UNION COUNCIL, BAJNIAL and another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1994 SCMR 1484
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions Nos. 172 and 173 of 1992 and Writ Petitions Nos. 195 and 194 of
Date1992-03-19
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Wali Muhammad Khan
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from petitions filed against the refusal of the High Court to entertain Constitutional Petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution due to the petitioners' failure to exhaust adequate alternative remedies provided by law. The core legal question concerns whether the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, provides an adequate alternative remedy for challenging the levy of the impugned tax, thereby barring writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the writ petitions, as the relevant provisions of the Ordinance, including sections 139, 156, 166, and 173, furnish adequate alternative remedies. Furthermore, the Court ruled that disputed questions of fact, such as whether the tax in question constitutes a market fee, are more appropriately resolved before specialized functionaries or through a civil suit where evidence can be recorded. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the impugned judgment and refused leave to appeal.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 provide an adequate alternative remedy barring a constitutional petition under Article 199?
  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the levy of a tax be properly agitated in writ proceedings when alternative forums and civil suits are available?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to entertain a writ petition when the petitioner has not exhausted available alternative remedies?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 199 of the Constitution
  • section 156 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979
  • section 166
  • sections 139
  • 156 and 173
constitutional petitionalternative remedywrit jurisdictiontax levymarket feedisputed questions of factleave to appeal

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ---These petitions have arisen out of the refusal by the High Court to entertain Constitutional (Writ) Petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution on the ground that adequate alternate remedy is provided by law governing the case and same not having been exhausted the writ petitions do not lie.

2. ' Learned counsel has contended that section 156 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 does not provide remedy in so far as the levy of impugned tax is concerned. He has also contended that the Provincial Government had by a Circular Letter prohibited the Union Council from levying the impugned tax.

3. ' Learned counsel for the caveator has in addition to section 166 relied on sections 139, 156 and 173 which, according to him, furnish enough alternative remedies which are all adequate, therefore, without exhausting the relevant remedies the writ petition could not be entertained.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in facts and circumstances of this case those provisions are not attracted. We do not agree with him. The questions of fact which were agitated before the High Court including the question, whether, the tax in question in reality is not a market A fee as asserted from the respondents side could more properly and easily be debated and agitated before the functionaries mentioned in above-referred provisions (and even the remedy by way of suit in the circumstances can be filed particularly in cases involving the disputed question of fact) can be better agitated before a forum which can easily record evidence. Learned counsel for the repondent also cited Messrs Punjab Feeds Ltd. v. Abdul Ghafoor 1990 SCMR 439(2), to show that the provisions contained in the Ordinance provide sufficient adequate alternative remedy which is normally followed in such like cases. In so far as the judgment relied upon goes it does show that a similar case has gone before the Commissioner prior to the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

5. In the light of the foreging discussion the impugned judgment being E unexceptionable, we find no justification for interference. Leave to appeal, therefore is refused.

Cited by 21 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.