2016 PLP 1845 (YLR)
The HEAD OF RETAIL FINANCE DIVISION, THE BANK OF PUNJAB and another — Appellants Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 1845 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | Atir Mahmood and Mushtaq Ahmad Tarar, JJ |
| Parties | The HEAD OF RETAIL FINANCE DIVISION, THE BANK OF PUNJAB and another — Appellants Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 1845 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 1845 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: Atir Mahmood and Mushtaq Ahmad Tarar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 1845 (YLR) (The HEAD OF RETAIL FINANCE DIVISION, THE BANK OF PUNJAB and another — Appellants Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saleem Iqbal for Appellants.
- Muhammad Adnan Shahid Sherwani for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3
Appellant Bank was aggrieved of order passed by Single Judge of High Court whereby Constitutional petition filed by respondent was disposed of on the basis of undertaking given by Bank Manager
Appellant Bank was not given proper opportunity to contest constitutional petition nor report and para-wise comments were awaited
No proper hearing was given to appellant and simply on undertaking given by its Manager, the petition was disposed of
Manager of appellant Bank was not authorized by appellant to give the undertaking
Bank had produced official documents which reflected that show cause notice was issued regarding matter in hand to the Manager who in reply had sought unconditional apology for giving said undertaking while submitting that his appearance before Court was only in obedience of the court and nothing else
Division Bench of High Court, set aside the order in question and remanded the matter to Single Judge of High Court for decision afresh in accordance with law
Intra court appeal was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Through this Intra-Court Appeal, the appellant has challenged order dated 12.08.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in Chamber in Writ Petition No.5179/2015 which was disposed of in view of undertaking given by Manger, Bank of Punjab Vehari Branch/respondent No.3 in writ petition that the vehicle/Suzuki Bolan would be handed over to the writ petitioner within a period of ten days.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the Manager/respondent No.3 in the writ petition was not competent to make the statement as noted in para 1 above as the Self Employment Scheme for Education Unemployed Youth (SESEUY) whereby the vehicles were being supplied had already closed which fact was communicated to all Unit Managers, Consumer Finance Centre, The Bank of Punjab vide circular No.HO/RFD/2012/4335 dated 20.11.2012.
4. Scanning of record reveals that in the writ petition, wherein this ICA has been instituted, the notices were issued to the respondents on 08.04.2015. On 27.07.2015, learned Law Officer sought time to file report and parawise comments upon which the case was fixed for 06.08.2015 when respondents Nos.2 and 3 were directed to appear in person on 12.08.2015. On the said date, respondent No.3 appeared before the Court and gave the undertaking in dispute. This shows that the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) were not given proper opportunity to contest the writ petition nor the report and para wise comments were awaited nor proper hearing was given to them and simply on the undertaking given by the Manager, the writ petition was disposed of. Furthermore, the Manager, Bank of Punjab Branch Vehari though was respondent in the writ petition but he does not seem to be authorized by the appellants to give the disputed undertaking. Furthermore, the appellants have produced official documents No.BOP/CFC/MLT/36 dated 10.09.2015 and No.BOP/VRI/2015/90 dated 14.09.2015 which reflect that Show Cause Notice was issued regarding the matter in hand to the said Manager who in reply has sought unconditional apology for giving the disputed undertaking while submitting that his appearance before the court was only in obedience of the Court and nothing else.
5. For what has been discussed above, learned Single Judge has erred in law while passing the impugned order. Resultantly, this ICA is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to learned Single Judge for decision afresh, strictly in accordance with law. MH/H-35/L Case remanded.