ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

C.P. No.D-2200 of 2016

___________________________________________________________ Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

Priority Case:

1. For hearing of CMA No.9860/2016.

2. For hearing of main case.

-----------

13.09.2018

Mr. Muhammad Atiq Qureshi, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Meer Hussain Abbasi, Asst. Attorney General.

Mr. Muhammad Khalil Dogar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

-*-*-*-*-*-

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has raised an objection as to maintainability of instant petition and has referred to the statement dated 22.09.2016 filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 alongwith copy of Order-in-Original No.379843-15062015 passed by the Collector of Customs (Adjudication-I) on 24.04.2015, which shows that order-in-original has already been passed in the instant case against M/s. Agro Bean International in respect of the consignment, which is subject matter of instant petition. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner is not aggrieved by any act of the official respondents.

While confronted with hereinabove position, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not aware about passing of the order-in-original by the respondents in the instant case. Whereas, according to the learned counsel for petitioner, respondents No.2&3 have played fraud upon the petitioner while importing the consignment through misrepresentation and by submitting fake documents, therefore, the petitioner wants that the subject consignment may be treated as frustrated cargo and may be allowed for re-shipment.

From perusal of the memo of petition and the relief sought by the petitioner, it appears that on the basis of allegation against private respondents No.2&3, who according to petitioner have played fraud upon the petitioner, petitioner has sought relief under Article 199 of the Constitution, which prima facie, appears to be misconceived, as the disputed facts requiring evidence have been agitated, which cannot be examined by this Court while exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Moreover, there is no adverse order against the petitioner in respect of subject consignment passed by the respondents, which may provide any cause of action to the petitioner to file instant petition. However, if petitioner is aggrieved by any misconduct of a private parties, then petitioner will be at liberty to proceed against them in accordance with law by filing appropriate proceedings before the relevant forum. In view of above facts and circumstances of instant case, the request of petitioner, allowing reshipment of the subject consignment at this stage, cannot be entertained. Accordingly, instant petition, involving a dispute between private parties, which requires recording of evidence into the allegations, is misconceived, which is hereby dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. However, petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law by approaching the relevant forum.

J U D G E