1989 PLP 1623 (SCMR)
AZIZULLAH KHAN Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 4 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1623 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | AZIZULLAH KHAN Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 4 others Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1623 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1623 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1623 (SCMR) (AZIZULLAH KHAN Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 4 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rehmat Ullah Khan and Tariq Jamal Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Ncmo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 22‑5‑1988, of the Peshawar High Court, in Writ Petition No.167 of 1988). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑High Court's finding that petitioner had no locus standi to invoke writ jurisdiction was correct‑‑Petitioner, however, could agitate the matter before the other concerned Authorities including Government functionaries/agencies if and when an order adverse to him was passed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑After hearing the representative of the petitioner we agree with the High Court that the petitioner had no locus standi in the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. to challenge the installation of the petrol/diesel pump in question. It, however, observed that the petitioner can agitate the matter before the other concerned authorities including the Government functionaries/agencies. If and when an order adverse to him is passed which can be brought under challenge before a Court of law; he may then do so in accordance with law. With these observations this petition is dismissed. M.A.K./A‑512/S Petition dismissed.