YLR 2005

2005 PLP 1623 (YLR)

SOHAIL ANJAM — Petitioner Versus SYNDICATE COMMITTEE through Chairman, Baha-ud-Din Zikriyya University, Multan and 3 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition No.8417 of 2001, decided on 10th June, 2004.
Honorable Judges
Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2005 PLP 1623 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J
Parties SOHAIL ANJAM — Petitioner Versus SYNDICATE COMMITTEE through Chairman, Baha-ud-Din Zikriyya University, Multan and 3 others — Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1623 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1623 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1623 (YLR) (SOHAIL ANJAM — Petitioner Versus SYNDICATE COMMITTEE through Chairman, Baha-ud-Din Zikriyya University, Multan and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Malik Arab Hussain for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Art. 199

Constitutional petition-- Maintainability

Educational Institution-- Quashing of result

Petitioner having been found guilty by Syndicate, his result was quashed and petitioner had filed representation against decision of Syndicate, which was pending before the Chancellor of the University...Decision in the representation of petitioner by Chancellor had not been, made for the last about two years and same was pending-- Petitioner having availed alternate remedy, his Constitutional petition was not maintainable

Chancellor, however, was directed to decide representation of petitioner as soon as possible

In case of rejection of representation of petitioner by Chancellor, petitioner could avail other remedies. Malik Muhammad Tariq Rajwana for the University/Respondents.

Judgment & Decree

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Art. 199

Constitutional petition-- Maintainability

Educational Institution-- Quashing of result

Petitioner having been found guilty by Syndicate, his result was quashed and petitioner had filed representation against decision of Syndicate, which was pending before the Chancellor of the University...Decision in the representation of petitioner by Chancellor had not been, made for the last about two years and same was pending-- Petitioner having availed alternate remedy, his Constitutional petition was not maintainable

Chancellor, however, was directed to decide representation of petitioner as soon as possible

In case of rejection of representation of petitioner by Chancellor, petitioner could avail other remedies. Malik Arab Hussain for Petitioner. Malik Muhammad Tariq Rajwana for the University/Respondents. The petitioner having been found guilty by the Syndicate, the result of Part-II and Part.1II was quashed. Against the decision of the Syndicate the petitioner also filed representation which is pending before the Chancellor. The decision on the representation of the petitioner by the Chancellor has not been made for the last about two years and the same is still pending.

2. As the petitioner has availed an alternate remedy hence this petition at this stage is not maintainable. However, the Chancellor shall decide the application/representation of the petitioner as soon as possible. In case of rejection of his representation the petitioner can avail the other remedies. The result of the petitioner in Part-I; LL.B. has been retained and the petitioner if applies to the University for appearance in part-II his case shall be Considered by the University. Due to the above observations learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this writ petition for the time being, which is disposed of accordingly. However, the petitioner can file fresh writ petition after the decision of the Chancellor, if so advised. H.B.T./S-308/L Order accordingly.