1970 PLP 61 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF MALIK-Petitioner Versus THE CHAIRMAN, THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
| Citation | 1970 PLP 61 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF MALIK-Petitioner Versus THE CHAIRMAN, THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 61 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 61 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 61 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF MALIK-Petitioner Versus THE CHAIRMAN, THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Ibrahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Maqbool Ahmad, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 25th October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 14th June 1967, in Writ Petition No. 963 of 1965). Constitution of Pakistan 1962 Art. 58(3)-Conflict between decisions of two Division Benches of same High Court-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to give art authoritative pronouncement on point involved.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS C. J.‑This petition, seeking Special Leave to Appeal against refusal of a writ by the High Court, raises a question concerning the propriety and validity of the termination of the petitioner's service by order of the Chairman of the Thal Development Authority, a statutory body. Mr. M. Ibrahim Khan points out that the particular instru ments under which the action of the Authority was taken have been the subject of interpretation by another Division Bench of the High Court, against whose decision leave to appeal has been granted by this Court on the 10th October 1967, in Civil Petitions Nos. 331 and 332 of 1967. The other Division Bench has acted on an interpretation which is contrary to that reached in the present case. It is desirable that this Court should give an authoritative interpretation of these instruments, in view of the conflict which has arisen. We accordingly grant leave to appeal as prayed. Security Rs. 1,
000. Leave granted.