Constitutional Petition No.D-358 of 2018
Date Order with Signature of the Judge
For orders as to maintainability of petition.
15th May, 2018.
Sardar Azmat Hussain, Advocate a/w petitioner.
Mr. Hakim Ali Shaikh, Additional Advocate General, Sindh
Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.
Mr. Pervez Akhtar, State Counsel.
Syed Amir Ali Shah Jilani, Advocate for respondent No.10.
>>>>> <<<<
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. Perusal of memo of petition reveals that petitioner through the instant petition while seeking directions to official respondents to provide legal protection, on the other hand sought directions to official respondents not to register case against him or not to arrest him.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General, Sindh, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh and State counsel submit that the instant petition is not maintainable as civil and criminal disputes involved in the matter. However, as regards the providing legal protection to the petitioner is concerned, they submit that State functionaries are legally bound to provide legal protection to all the citizens including the petitioners without any discrimination. They ensure that official respondents shall conduct themselves strictly in accordance with law and provide legal protection to the petitioner.
4. 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. Such an exercise is only possible by a competent Court of law having plenary jurisdiction in the matter. In such a situation our hands are once again tied and we are afraid we cannot stretch over hands for the redressal of grievances of petitioner as Article 247(7) of the Constitution bars the exercise of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. 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 and similarly deviation from the normal procedure of law is not inconsonance with the settled principles, besides, when alternate remedies provided under the law are available to the petitioner, constitutional jurisdiction cannot be exercised. Thus, the petitioner is required to adopt the remedies available to him under the law for redressal of his grievances, if advised so. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed.
5. As regards the harassment and legal protection, the official respondent 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