Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 450‑R of 1985, decided on 13th April, 1986.

(From the order of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench at Abbottabad, dated 15‑12‑1985, passed in Writ Petition No. 44 of 1985).

----Arts, 185(3) & 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Domain of‑‑On a statement/ undertaking given by one respondent a statutory functionary, writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn‑‑Order impugned‑‑Plea that being a party to proceedings, no undertaking should have been got recorded from statutory functionary; and that such functionary could not commit in law as such nor petition could be disposed of in that manner, repelled‑‑If undertaking was not implemented properly, petitioner would have separate appropriate remedy against it‑‑To prevent statutory functionary from making a statement which he wanted to make, held, was not domain of Constitutional jurisdiction and it was premature to examine correctness or validity of statement made by him‑‑No serious question for consideration arising in the petition, leave to appeal refused.

Abdul Hakeem Khan, Senior. Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Maulvi Siraj‑ul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court with Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 6.

Date of hearing: 13th April, 1986.

The petitioner, Chairman, Local Council, Inayat Abad, Tehsil and District Mansehra, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 15‑12‑1985, whereby a constitutional petition filed by the respondents was dismissed as withdrawn on a statement made by the statutory functionary, respondent No.7.

2. The Vice‑Chairman and the Councillors of the Local Council Inayat Abad filed a constitutional petition claiming that a no confidence motion had been moved against the petitioner on 23‑10‑1985 and the statutory functionary, respondent No.7, was in collusion with the Chairman and had not called the meeting within 15 days as required by law. The respondent No.7 was specially summoned by the Court, who appeared and made a statement that he would convene the meeting within ten days from 15‑12‑1985. The petitioner was not, at that stage, served nor was he present. On this statement in the nature of an undertaking by the statutory functionary, the writ petitioners did not press their petition which was dismissed in limine as withdrawn.

3. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal on the ground that being party to the proceedings, no undertaking should have been got recorded from the statutory functionary and the statutory functionary could not commit in law to call for that meeting nor could the constitutional petition be disposed of in this manner.

4. We do not consider that this petition for leave to appeal raises any serious question for consideration of this Court. The constitutional petition has been dismissed as withdrawn. The statutory functionary has given only an undertaking. If in implementing that undertaking he commits an excess either in the exercise of jurisdiction or in that of power possessed by him, the petitioner will have a separate appropriate remedy against it. To prevent the statutory functionary from making a statement which he wants to make, is not the domain of the constitutional jurisdiction and it is premature to examine the correctness or the validity of the statement made by him. Leave to appeal is refused.

M.I. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.