Constitutional Petition No.D-4601 of 2016
Date Order with Signature of the Judge
1.For orders on office objection.
2.For orders on Misc. No. 22850/2016
3.For hearing of Misc. 22851/2016.
4.For hearing of Mian Case.
10th May, 2018.
Mr. Abdul Latif Leghari, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Ashfaq Rafiq Janjua, Assistant Attorney General.
Mr. Hakim Ali Shaikh, Additional Advocate General, Sindh.
Mr. Pervez Akhtar, State Counsel.
>>>>> <<<<
Aftab Ahmed Gorar, J.:- Perusal of memo of petition reveals that petitioner has sought directions for conducting enquiry with regard to encashment of saving certificates which as per petitioner owned by him which were snatched and that he never enchashed the said certificates.
2. Respondents 1 to 7 and 10 have filed their comments denying the allegations leveled in the petition, which are available on the record. Learned Assistant Attorney General, learned Additional Advocate General, Sindh and learned State Counsel submit that official respondents are acting in accordance with law and instant petition is not maintainable as the relief claimed in the petition relates to factual controversy.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner through this petition is seeking conducting of enquiry with regard to encashment of saving certificates which as per petitioner never encashed by him rather the same were snatched by some dacoits. It may not be out of place to mention here that in case of dacoity/snatching, the victim has to first approach the concerned Police Station for registration of FIR which in the present case was not done as the record is silent in this respect. More so, as per comments of respondents 1 to 7 and 10 the certificates were enchased by the petitioner himself during the period 1991 to 1997 and the present petition has been filed in the year 2016, after 19 years during which period petitioner remained mum. Even otherwise this factual controversy cannot be looked into or considered by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. 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.
4. In this view of the matter, we constrained to hold that this petition arising out of factual controversy and for want of jurisdiction cannot be entertained by this Court, hence the same is dismissed as such.
J U D G E
*Aamir/PS* J U D G E