Sh. Rashid Ahmad, M.N.A. from Constituency No, N.A. 38-Rawalpindi has filed this habeas corpus petition under Article 199(1)(b) (i) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenging his detention order dated 6.12.1994 passed by the District Magistrate, Rawalpindi under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, for a period of ninety days.
2. It is contended that the detention order lacks material particulars and the memorandum of grounds is without any proper and reasonable material. He did not involve himself in any prejudicial activity within the meaning of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The District Magistrate has abused his powers in colourful exercise of the authority for extraneous consideration. The detention order is illegal, mala fide, passed with the purpose of preventing him from attending the Sessions of National Assembly, it is added.
3. As regards coming directly to this Court without making a representation to the Government, it is stated that it would be a futile exercise, for, the "Authority" before whom the representation can be made is appointed by the Government and it would not be possible for the petitioner to get any relief from the said "Authority". It is further stated that the petition had been filed before this Court as the learned Advocate General had made a categorical statement on 5.12.1995 that the detention period of the petitioner was not being extended as a result of which the petitioner had withdrawn Writ Petition No, 1045/94, challenging his earlier detention order.
4. Learned Advocate General has contested the maintainability of the petition. According to him the detention order has been passed under the provisions of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, which provide that the detenu shall have an opportunity to prefer a representation before the Home Secretary to Government of the Punjab and as such he cannot approach this Court without availing of the said remedy. According to him the present order of detention was passed on the availability of fresh grounds/material, in view of the serious apprehension of breach of peace and disturbance of law and order. In this context he has made a specific reference to the speech made by the petitioner through audio cassette is a public meeting held at Rawalpindi on 2.12.1994, which, according to him has not been denied by the petitioner.
5. We asked Kh. Muhammad Sharif learned counsel for the petitioner to satisfy as about the maintainability of the petition, without availing of the remedy provided by law of making a representation to the Government. He stated that since the petitioner belongs to the Opposition and has been criticize the Government policies in and outside the Assembly, he has no confidence in the Home Secretary to Government of the Punjab. Moreover, he is subordinate to the Chief Minister, Punjab and the Governor Punjab, at whose behest the detention order of the petitioner was passed, he cannot be expected to go against their wishes. He has cited Muhammad Siddiq Khan v. District Magistrate, Rawalpindi (PLD 1992 Lahore 140) to show us that his exceptional circumstances Constitutional remedy can be invoked without filing a representation before the appropriate authority.
6. Learned Advocate-General has also cited certain precedents in support of the proposition that when the relevant law provides adequate remedy, High Court should not interfere in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
7. We have examined the case-law on the subject. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in Wealth Tax Officer v. Shaukat Afzal and others (1993 SCMR 1810) did not approve the invoking of Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court by abandoning or by-passing the statutory remedy without reasonable cause. The Supreme Court in the said case referred to their decision in the case of A. Habib Ahmed vs. M.K.G. Scott Christian and others (PLD 1992 SC 353), which was to the following effect:
8. "It is often said that if a Court has no jurisdiction it is better for the High Court to interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction to provide swift and efficacious remedy. Experience has shown and it has now been recorded as opinion in a large number of cases that in practice even if it was so few decades ago, it is no more so in the present circumstances. See a very recent judgment of this Court on this very issue Messrs English Boot Shoes Ltd. vs. Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs (Civil Appeal No, 344 of 1986, decided on 24.12.1991)."
9. In Ch. Abdul Qadir v. Lahore Commercial Bank Ltd. etc. (1980 SCMR 280) it was held that if a person voluntarily fails to avail himself all the remedies available to him under the civil law, he has no locus standi to maintain writ, the Supreme Court on this point. In Tariq Transport Company v.
Sargodha Bhera Bus Service, Sargodha (PLD 1958 SC 437) it was observed as under: "Having given careful consideration to this aspect of the matter, I am of the view that the present case was governed by the general rule that where a statute a right and also provides a machinery for the enforcement of that right, the party complaining of a breach of the statute must first avail himself of the remedy provided by the statute for such breach before he applies for a writ or an order in the nature of a writ. Since, the present case, the statute under which the Respondent had a grievance provides an appeal in which that grievance can be set right no writ of certiorari or mandamus or any other discretionary order of the nature should have been issued by the High Court."
10. Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 provides an extraordinary remedy to the aggrieved person of invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court with the underlying purpose to keep the administrative and judicial authorities within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the law provides a remedy to another authority fully competent to give relief, any indulgence to the contrary by the High Court is likely to produce a sense of distrust in those authorities and to cast an undeserved reflection on their integrity and competency and would defeat the legislative intent.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to repel the above proposition of law. Accordingly we do not feel persuaded to allow direct entertainment of the writ petition without availing of adequate remedy under the law because jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is subject to law. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to approach the Home Secretary to Government of the Punjab by making a representation in accordance with law.
If the representation is made, the Home Secretary to Government of the Punjab shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.