1989 PLP 3519 (MLD)
MUNIR AHMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus AKHTAR HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 3519 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, J |
| Parties | MUNIR AHMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus AKHTAR HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3519 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 3519 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3519 (MLD) (MUNIR AHMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus AKHTAR HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Naseer‑ud‑Din Ahmed for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional petition, maintainability of‑‑Authority in impugned order observed that petitioners for return of amount deposited by them could move proper application‑‑Observation of Authority, thus could not be deemed to be arbitrary or unreasonable as it was only after petitioners had put up their claim for refund that Authority could be called upon to determine reasonableness or otherwise of their demand‑‑Petition being premature could not be entertained.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional petition, maintainability of‑‑Authority in impugned order observed that petitioners for return of amount deposited by them could move proper application‑‑Observation of Authority, thus could not be deemed to be arbitrary or unreasonable as it was only after petitioners had put up their claim for refund that Authority could be called upon to determine reasonableness or otherwise of their demand‑‑Petition being premature could not be entertained. Rana Muhammad Naseer‑ud‑Din Ahmed for Petitioners. This writ petition is rather premature and misconceived. All that the learned counsel for the petitioners desires is refund of the amount with interest and for that purpose he has referred to the decision of this Court in L.P.A. No. 91 of 1969.
2. The notified officer at the end of the impugned order has observed that the auction purchasers for the return of the amount deposited by them can move a proper application. I do not think this observation can be said to be arbitrary or so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have passed such an order. It is only after the petitioners have put up their claim for refund that the notified officer or the Settlement Department will be called upon to determine the reasonableness or otherwise of the demand and then decision will be rendered after listening to the contentions of the petitioners. Let the petitioners, therefore, if so advised, file an application as directed by the notified officer which of course will have to be decided one way or the other. It is thereafter that the petitioners will be in a position to put the machinery of law into motion for the recovery of the amount which they claim to be due to them.
3. The writ petition at the present stage being premature is not entertained and disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./M‑1545/L Petition dismissed.