1995 PLP 1289 (CLC)
ALI ENTERPRISES‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1289 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | ALI ENTERPRISES‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1289 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1289 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1289 (CLC) (ALI ENTERPRISES‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Bajwa for Petitioner..
- A. Karim Malik for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th April, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Exercise of‑‑‑Factual constroversy‑‑ Petitioner/importer in his Constitutional petition had alleged that action of respondent/Custom Authority was illegal being discriminatory as similar consignments of others had been cleared by Authority while his consignment had not been assessed‑‑‑Respondent Authority pointed out that petitioner had himself disowned the disputed consignments and in proof thereof Authority had annexed a letter allegedly written by petitioner‑‑‑Petitioner though had admitted that annexed letter was written by him but had alleged that same was got done under threats by Custom Intelligence‑‑‑Factual controversy was whether alleged letter disowning consignment was written by petitioner under threat or not‑‑‑High Court, held, was not a proper forum to determine such factual controversy in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Exercise of‑‑‑Factual constroversy‑‑ Petitioner/importer in his Constitutional petition had alleged that action of respondent/Custom Authority was illegal being discriminatory as similar consignments of others had been cleared by Authority while his consignment had not been assessed‑‑‑Respondent Authority pointed out that petitioner had himself disowned the disputed consignments and in proof thereof Authority had annexed a letter allegedly written by petitioner‑‑‑Petitioner though had admitted that annexed letter was written by him but had alleged that same was got done under threats by Custom Intelligence‑‑‑Factual controversy was whether alleged letter disowning consignment was written by petitioner under threat or not‑‑‑High Court, held, was not a proper forum to determine such factual controversy in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction in circumstances. Zafar Iqbal Bajwa for Petitioner.. A. Karim Malik for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th April, 1994. The petition was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to respondents, who have appeared and contested petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition as argued that similar consignments of others have been cleared by the Customs while the consignment of the petitioner has not been assessed, therefore, the action of the respondents is illegal being discriminatory. It is added that since no order has been passed and assessment made, therefore, the petitioner has no remedy in the Customs hierarchy.
2. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that earlier the petitioner had disowned these consignments. In this behalf he has referred to the Annexure `A' with the written statement.
2. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. The petitioner has filed a re‑joinder to the written statement submitted by the respondents. The petitioner therein although alleged that the letter Annexure `A' with the written statement was written under threats by the Customs Intelligence yet the letter is admitted. The petitioner admittedly did not plead this fact in the writ petition. This way he has not invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction with clean hands, therefore, not entitled to any relief. Moreover, it is a factual controversy whether the alleged letter disowning the consignments was written under threats or not. It is not a roper forum to determine the legality of the letter.
3. The upshot of this discussion is that this petition is dismissed, however, there is no order as to costs. H.B.T./A‑764 Petition dismissed.