HYDERABAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY through President S.M.
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sindh High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition filed by the Hyderabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The core legal question addressed was whether the High Court correctly dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of the availability of an alternate remedy, specifically noting that the petitioners had already initiated an appeal process before the Federal Government regarding the order of the Director, Trade Organization, without awaiting its outcome. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the dismissal was appropriate due to the existence of this alternate remedy. The Court held that when a petitioner has already invoked an alternate statutory remedy, they are precluded from simultaneously pursuing writ jurisdiction in the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, noting that the petitioners could challenge the Federal Government's subsequent appellate decision in the High Court if they remained aggrieved, thereby reinforcing the principle of exhaustion of alternate remedies before invoking constitutional jurisdiction.
- Is a writ petition maintainable when an alternate statutory remedy has already been invoked by the petitioner?
- Does the pendency of an appeal before a statutory authority preclude the filing of a writ petition in the High Court?
ORDER
1. ' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---Learned counsel for petitioners contended that Writ Petition No,D-389 of 1994 was mainly dismissed by the Sindh High Court on the ground that the same was not maintainable in law as the alternate remedy was available to the petitioners and resort to that had already been 'made without awaiting the result thereof, the observation of the Court was untenable because the circumstances of the instant case required determination on merits.
2. In our view the learned Judges of the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of the alternate remedy to the petitioners and having filed appeal against the order of Director, Trade Organization, before the Federal Government. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the Federal Government has disposed of the appeal and the petitioners intend to challenge that order before the Sindh High Court in writ jurisdiction.
3. ' In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal in this case and dismiss this petition.