' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.--- This appeal has been filed, with leave of the Court, to challenge the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the present appellant.
2. Facts forming background of the present appeal are that, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the allotment of the disputed plot made in favour of respondent No,4 Muhammad Bashir. The writ petition was filed on 11th January, 1999 but only three days later the Government set up a Revising Authority to scrutinize a set of allotments which covered the allotment impugned in the writ petition. When the respondents filed written statement in the High Court they raised an objection that the writ petition could not proceed in view of the setting up of the Revising Authority. Thereupon, the learned Judge passed the following order:-- "2. 'In view of the aforesaid position, the counsel for the petitioner, for the time being, does not want to proceed with the petition which, in the circumstances, is dismissed. However, this order shall not bind the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court if the remedy is not found adequate one."
3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As pointed out by Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, the legal position is that a writ petition can be dismissed on that ground only if the High Court is satisfied that another adequate remedy is available but the learned Judge himself was in doubt whether the setting up of the Revising Authority was an adequate alternative remedy or not which is proved by the observation that the petitioner may file a writ if remedy is not found adequate. The relevant portion of section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act is as follows:-- "44. Jurisdiction of High Court. (1) ............................
(2) Subject to this Act, the High Court may if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law.
(a) .
(b)
4. It follows that the High Court must be satisfied about the adequacy of the other remedy before ordering the dismissal of writ petition. In the present case this element is lacking as is obvious from the order passed by the High Court.
5. It is stated in the High Court order that the learned counsel for the writ petitioner did not want to proceed with the petition. Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan has filed an affidavit to the effect that he did not make that statement before the High Court. This statement has not been controverted from the learned counsel who appeared for the respondents in the High Court. However, respondent Muhammad Bashir has filed an affidavit that he was present in the Court on 13th March, 1999 and that counsel for the appellant did not press the writ petition in view of the Constitution of Revising Authority, In the order passed by the High Court Muhammad Bashir is not shown to be present in the Court at the time of hearing. It was only Choudhary Muhammad Sarfraz, his learned counsel, who is shown to have been present. Therefore, much credence cannot be given to the affidavit. Be that it may there is no estoppel against law. It is also well-recognized that a I concession made by the counsel on a question of law does not bind his client.
6. Therefore, the order of the High Court is unsustainable. However, the question whether setting up of Revising Authority provides an adequate remedy or not is left open.
' In these circumstances the order of dismissal passed by the High Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law.