ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Constitutional Petition No.D-3869 of 2018

                                                                                                                                                                                                                Date                                       Order with Signature of the Judge                                                                   

 

1.For orders on Misc. No. 17535/2018.

2.For orders on Misc. No. 17536/2018.

3.For orders on Misc. No. 17537/2018.

4.For hearing of main case.

 

 

17th May, 2018.

Mr. Abdul Qadir Leghari, Advocate for petitioner.

>>>>> <<<<

 

Aftab Ahmed Gorar, J.:- We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well counsel representing the State/respondents and with their assistance perused the available record.

 

2.         Mr. Hakim Ali Shaikh, Additional Advocate General, Sindh, Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh and Mr. Pervez Akhtar, State Counsel present in court in other cases, waive notice and submit that the instant petition is not maintainable as the same is relates to civil dispute. However, as regards harassment they ensure that official respondents shall conduct themselves strictly in accordance with law.

 

3.         Apparently, the claim of the petitioner if seen in its entirety then what is surfaced is a claim of factual controversy, which cannot be looked into or considered by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The claim of petitioner can only be considered after a proper inquiry into the facts by recording pro and contra evidence of the parties which is outside the domain of this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is equitable and discretionary and is to be exercised only where substantial rights of a party have been invaded in flagrant violation of law and which can be established without any comprehensive inquiry into the facts. In this background of case, we constrained to hold that this petition arising out of factual controversy and for want of jurisdiction cannot be entertained by this Court. Thus, the petitioner is required to avail remedy available to him under the law for redressal of his grievances before the competent forum, if advised so. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. The pending applications are also disposed of.  

 

4.         As regards the harassment, the official respondents are directed to conduct themselves strictly in accordance with law and provide legal protection of life, honour and property to the petitioner in the manner that no one shall cause him harassment.

 

 

                                                                                                            J U D G E

 

 

 

*Aamir/PS*                                                                                                J U D G E