The writ of mandamus, certiorari and prohibition, and for that matter, all high prerogative writs are not i ss u e d where there exists an alternative remedy equally efficient and adequate. Whether the alternative remedy is equally efficacious or adequate is a question of fact to be decided in each case. When there is violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner, the Supreme Court as well as High Court have to exercise their extra ordinary jurisdiction to issue appropriate writs When question raised in the petition is constitutional or of public importance and the general public is interested it is desire-able for the High Court to entertain the petition. When once a High Court entertains a petition under the Constitution, it would not be proper to dismiss it onl y on the ground that an alternative remedy is available to the a ppl i ca nt.
© C op y r i gh t Virtual Un i v e r s i ty of Pakistan 127 127 MGT621 VU L ec t u r e 34 Kinds of W r i t Meaning of the writ of Quo Warranto as p e r B la c k ’ s Law D i c t i o n a r y Edition 9 th : Law Latin “by w ha t authority” . It is a common law writ used to inquire in to the authority by which a pu bl i c office is h e l d . Writ of Quo Warranto is an action by which the state seeks to revoke a corporation’s charter. Writ of Quo Warranto is a remedy whereby the Court enquires in to the legality of the claim which a p a r t y assumes to an office and to oust him from that office if the claim is not well founded or to have it declared forfeited and to recover i t . High Court in exercising its constitutional jurisdiction is competent to enquire from a person holding the public office a s to under w h a t a uthority of l a w he c l a i m s to hold the o ff i ce . The writ of Quo Warranto was in its nature an information, lying against a person who claimed and usurped an office, franchise or liberty and was intended to enquire by what authority he supported his claim in order tha t the right to the office or franchise or liberty may be determined. It is necessary for the issue of writ that the office should be one created by the state, by charter or by statute and that the duty attaching to the of f i ce should be of a public nature. It is also necessary that the respondent should be in possession and user of the particular office in question. The office must be substantive in character, that is, an office independent in t i t le and not being terminable at pleasure. Under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the High Court in exercise of its c on s t it ut io n a l jurisdiction is competent to inquire any person holding public office a s to show under what a uthority he i s holding the office . Under such situation it is the duty of the petitioner to provide information before the court that such officer has no legal authority to retain the office. For a petitioner who acts as an informer is no t required to establish his locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. The writ can be moved by a person who even