2739/2011 Const. P. Haji Muhammad Ashraf Memon (Petitioner) V/S Ministry of Housing & Works & Ors (Respondent)
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
2739/2011 Const. P. Haji Muhammad Ashraf Memon (Petitioner) V/S Ministry of Housing & Works & Ors (Respondent) Sindh High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) Order Date: 11-DEC-24
The High Court's constitutional jurisdiction is extraordinary and should only be used when other remedies are unavailable. The Supreme Court's judgment in Dr. Abdul Nabi's case (2023 SCMR 1267) supports this view. ???The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is envisioned predominantly for affording an express remedy where the unlawfulness and impropriety of the action of an executive or other governmental authority could be substantiated without any convoluted inquiry. The expression "adequate remedy" signifies an effectual, accessible, advantageous, and expeditious remedy that should also be remedium juris, i.e. more convenient, beneficial, and effective. To effectively bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, the remedy available under the law must be able to accomplish the same purpose which is sought to be achieved through a writ petition. This extraordinary jurisdiction is provided as a remedy to cure illegality which can be established without any elaborate inquiry into disputed facts???