IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Constt: Petition No.D3695 of 2015

Constt: Petition No.D440 of 2017

 

DATE OF

HEARING

 

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE.

1.   For orders on O/objection at flag-A.

2.   For orders on CMA No.5058/20

3.   For orders on CMA No.7541/17

4.   For orders on CMA No.7542/17

5.   For orders on CMA No.4353/17

6.   For orders on CMA No.2531/17

7.   For orders on CMA No.2532/17

8.   For orders on CMA No.10435/15

9.   For hearing of main case.

 

 

 

Date of hearing. 19.04.2022

 

 

 

 

Petitioner No.1 Nouman Shehzad in C.P. No.D-3695 of 2015, in person.

 

 

M/s Khan Muhammad Sangi and Kamran Mobeen Khan Advocate for respondents

Mr. Noor Hassan Malik AAG.

********

By means of these constitutional petitions, the petitioner have called in question, inter alia, the affairs of the managing committee of M/s. Sindh Co-operative Housing Society Sukkur.

From the perusal of record, it appears that this court while dealing with issue in respect of the said Society passed a detailed order in Constitutional Petitions No.D-518 of 2020 and No.D-1013 of 2019 on 31.03.2021, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur was directed to take-over possession/charge of Sindh Co-operative Housing Society, Sukkur immediately with further direction to collect all files of the Society in his captivity till the newly body of the Society is elected and NAB authorities was also directed to probe into the matter.

 

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the adequate and efficacious remedy is available with the petitioners to approach the Administrator/Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur, appointed by this Court to look after the affairs of the Sindh Co-operative Housing Society Sukkur, for redressal of their grievances. It is settled proposition of law that where an adequate and efficacious remedy is available, constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked.

In the circumstances, the above petitions, being not sustainable, stands dismissed, however, the petitioners would be at liberty to avail the remedy available to them in accordance with law.

 

 

 

J U D G E

 

 

J U D G E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rafi