ALTAF HUSSAIN through Lawful Attorney VS MUHAMMAD ASLAM
2005 P T D 1469
[Karachi High Court]
Before Anwar Zaheer Jamali and S. Ali Aslam Jafri, JJ
ALTAF HUSSAIN through Lawful Attorney
versus
MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 5 others
C.P. No. D-907 of 2004, decided on 04/11/2004.
Customs Act (IV of 1969)---
----Ss. 168 & 194-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Confiscation of vehicle and imposition of penalty---Petitioner had conceded in his Constitutional petition that all grounds urged in the Constitutional petition had been taken by the petitioner in his appeal which was pending before the Appellate Tribunal---Effect---Suchbeingthepositionitwasevidentthatnotonlyadequatealternateremedywasavailabletothepetitioneragainstthe orders impugned in the Constitutional petition but such remedy had already been availed by him---No valid justification, in circumstances, was available for the High Court to entertain the Constitutionalpetitionatsuchastage---Petitionwasdismissedinlimine with the observation that Appellate Tribunal shall hear and disposeofthependingappealofthepetitionerwithintwomonthsfromthedateofcommunicationoforderoftheHighCourt.
Sami Ahsan for Petitioner.
Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.
Date hearing: 4th November, 2004.
ORDER
ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.--- By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders, dated 8-7-2004 and 31-12-2003 passed by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 respectively, whereby vehicle bearingregistration No. CJ-3660, Toyota Hiace. Chassis No. LH-110-0001888, Engine No.21-2151076 wasordered to be confiscated with penalty of Rs.1,00,000.
In the memo. of petition, while narrating the relevant facts of the case, in para. 30 of the petition, the petitioner has specifically stated that against the impugned ordersan appeal has been preferred before the Appellate Tribunal under the Customs Act being Appeal No.676 of 2004, which is pending for adjudication.
Though copy of memo. of such appeal has not been annexed with this petition but on our query learned counsel has candidly conceded that all grounds urged in this petition have been taken by the petitioner in his appeal which is pending before the Appellate Tribunal. This being theposition that not only adequate alternate remedy is available to the petitioner against the two orders impugned in this petitionbut such remedy has already been availed by him, we do not find anyvalid justification to entertain this petition atthis stage. Same is accordingly dismissed in limine with the observations that the AppellateTribunal shall hear and dispose of the pending Appeal No.676 of 2004 of the petitioner within twomonths from the date of communication of this order.
Foregoing are the reasons of our short order whereby this petition was dismissed in liminetoday along with listed applications.
M.B.A./A-185/KPetition dismissed.