1991 PLP 2383 (MLD)
Mrs. RUBINA MUHAJAR — Appellant Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 2383 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mrs. RUBINA MUHAJAR — Appellant Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 2383 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 2383 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 2383 (MLD) (Mrs. RUBINA MUHAJAR — Appellant Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3
Intra-Court Appeal-- Constitutional jurisdiction
Appellant was wife of a Squadron Leader serving in Pakistan Air Force
One confidential letter was addressed by superior officer to husband of appellant in which it was stated that his wife/appellant had been indulging in loose gossip and scandalous insinuations against the wives of other officers without any justification
Appellant filed Constitutional petition praying that respondents be directed to produce disputed letter and material on basis of which it was issued and further that contents of that letter be quashed with a further prayer that a case under S.500, P.P.C. be registered
High Court dismissed Constitutional petition finding no merit in that
Letter in dispute being confidential communication from superior officer to his subordinate, it was highly doubtful whether appellant could raise any objection in that behalf
High Court, however, had observed that if appellant had any objection to contents of said letter, she could represent against it and explain position to superior officer who issued same
Such observations should suffice to allay any apprehension in mind of appellant
No interference, in the letter thus was called for.
Judgment & Decree
IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY, J.
This appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 is directed against the order, dated 27-6-1990 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby he dismissed in limine Writ Petition No.4531 of 1990 filed by the petitioner.
2. Mrs. Rubina Muhajar, appellant is the wife of respondent No.6, Squadron Leader Tanvir Ahmad Muhajar, who is serving in the Pakistan Air Force at Mianwali. According to her case, on 25-4-1990 a confidential letter was addressed by respondent No.2 to her husband stating that the appellant had been indulging in loose gossip and scandulous insinuations against the wives of other Officers without any justification. According to the appellant, this assertion was false. She, therefore, filed Constitutional petition praying that the respondents be directed to produce the letter and the material on the basis of which it was issued and further that the contents of the letter may be quashed. It is also prayed that a case under section 500, P.P.C. be registered. The learned Single Judge finding no merit in this petition dismissed it in limine.
3. It was contended by Mr. Khakan Babar, learned counsel for the appellant that under no law, was any of the respondents competent to issue such a letter which contains false allegations against the appellant and, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The impugned letter is in the nature of a confidential communication from the superior officer to his subordinate and, therefore, it is highly doubtful whether the appellant can raise any cudgels in this behalf. Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge has already observed that if the appellant has any objection to the contents of the aforesaid letter, she can represent against it and explain the position to respondent No.2, who has been directed to afford an opportunity to explain her position. These observations should suffice to allay any apprehension in the mind of the appellant. No interference in the impugned letter is called for. The Intra-Court Appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./R-305/L Appeal dismissed.