1. ' The petitioner had applied for grant of P.R.C. In form `C' from Thatta District, which was rejected by District Magistrate, Thatta on 28-1-1989 on the grounds, which, in the words of the District Magistrate himself, are as follows;-- _"Enquiries made in the matter revealed that the applicant is not permanent resident of Mehran Farm Taluka Sajawal. He was born in 1969 in District Larkana and acquired his primary as well as Secondary education from there. He has passed Higher Secondary Examination from Govt. College, Hyderabad in 1988. Neither he nor his father possess any property in this District to show their permanent interest. Both the M ukhfiarkar and the Assistant Commissioner Sujawal have not recommended the request of the applicant for -grant of P.R.C."
2. ' The petitioner filed an appeal before Commissioner, Hyderabad against the said order on 3-4- 1989, who refused to entertain the same. Hence the petitioner filed this writ petition on 22-4-1990.
3. ' According to the Rules an appeal against the order of District Magistrate is to be filed before Home Department of Federal Government. Mr. Inamul Haq, Advocate for the petitioner concedes to this legal position. He, however, states that since he had filed the appeal in a wrong forum and wasted one year there, therefore, now he should be absolved from filing an appeal before the Federal Home Department and should be permitted to assail the order of the District Magistrate, impugned in this petition, directly in the High Court.
4. We are unable to agree with this strange argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was obligatory upon the petitioner to first exhaust the remedy of appeal provided to him. No recourse to the writ jurisdiction could be had by a petitioner without first resorting to all the remedies available to him under the law. Hence by not filing an appeal before the Home Department of Federal Government, the petitioner has lost his right to file a writ petition in this Court. Apart from that the impugned order was passed on 28-1-1989. Even the Commissioner had refused to entertain the petition long back. Hence this petition also suffers from latches. Apart from that the findings of fact of the impugned orders have been challenged very lightly which cannot be allowed ordinarily in writ jurisdiction.
5. ' The grounds mentioned in the order of District Magistrate are cogent and the order on the face of it appears to be convincing and appropriate.
6. ' These are the reasons for which today we had dismissed this writ petition.