SCMR 1968

1968 PLP (1) (SCMR)

REHMATULLAH‑Petitioner Versus NISNR AHMAD AND OTHERS‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 167 of 1968, decided on 20th June 1968.
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1968 PLP (1) (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties REHMATULLAH‑Petitioner Versus NISNR AHMAD AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Primary Law Constitution .of Pakistan (1962)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP (1) (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution .of Pakistan (1962) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP (1) (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 PLP (1) (SCMR) (REHMATULLAH‑Petitioner Versus NISNR AHMAD AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution .of Pakistan (1962)

Representation

  • Mian Fazl‑e‑Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Wajid Hussain, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing : 20th June 1968.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 25th January 1968, in Writ Petition No. 610 of 1960).

Art. 98‑Whether order passed in exercise of executive powers of Provincial Government open to review in writ jurisdictionSpecial Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court. Anjuman Ahmedia v. D. C. Sargodha P L D 1966 S C 639 ref. ORDER MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether under Article .170 of the 1956 Constitution read with Article 11 (4) of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958, the High Court had jurisdiction to quash the order of the Urban Rehabilitation Officer cancelling the permanent allotment of Quarter No. 5/19, Sodiwal, Lahore, in favour of the respondent No.

1. It is contended that the impugned order ‑was not made in pursuance to any statutory powers, but in the exercise of the executive powers of the Provincial Government which is not open to review in writ jurisdiction. The decision in the case of Anjuman Ahmedia v. D. C. Sargodha (P L D 1966 S C 639) is distinguished ‑on this ground. Security‑Rs.1,

000. Leave granted.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether under Article .170 of the 1956 Constitution read with Article 11 (4) of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958, the High Court had jurisdiction to quash the order of the Urban Rehabilitation Officer cancelling the permanent allotment of Quarter No. 5/19, Sodiwal, Lahore, in favour of the respondent No.

1. It is contended that the impugned order ‑was not made in pursuance to any statutory powers, but in the exercise of the executive powers of the Provincial Government which is not open to review in writ jurisdiction. The decision in the case of Anjuman Ahmedia v. D. C. Sargodha (P L D 1966 S C 639) is distinguished ‑on this ground. Security‑Rs.1,

000. Leave granted.