1989 PLP 1116 (SCMR)
LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION‑‑Petitioner Versus BARKAT ALI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1116 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION‑‑Petitioner Versus BARKAT ALI and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1116 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1116 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1116 (SCMR) (LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION‑‑Petitioner Versus BARKAT ALI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Fayyaz Hussain Qadri, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Iqbal Ahmad Oureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (absent).
- Date of hearing: 3rd September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20‑12‑1983 in C.M. I in I.CA. No.222 of 1983). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Keeping and maintenance of milch cattle within boundaries of Municipal Corporation‑‑Discretionary interim order passed by High Court‑‑In view of the practice of Supreme Court to keep interference with the discretionary interim order passed by the High Court at the minimum the Court refrained from doing so.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal, by the Lahore Municipal Corporation, is directed against an interim order passed by the Intra‑Court Appeal Bench of the Lahore High Court; whereby, while admitting an Intra‑Court appeal filed by the respondents side, the petitioner was directed not to "disturb" the respondents till the final disposal of the appeal. The present challenge is to the aforementioned interim order. According to the learned counsel, the respondents keep and maintain milch cattle within the Corporation Lahore. They are not only cause for delay in the proper and permanent development of the city; but, also cause serious nuisance and sometimes are responsible for accidents. Thus the question of public hazard is also involved. The respondents' writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge. It involved consideration, amongst others of the circumstance that the respondents had been provided adequate alternative arrangements. Notwithstanding the same they had insisted on maintenance of the status quo regarding keeping of the cattle in the city. The learned Intra‑Court Appeal Bench of the High Court considered it a fit case for re‑examination, admitted the appeal and passed the aforenoted interim order, which has been challenged in this petition for leave to appeal, Learned counsel states that the Intra‑Court Appeal has not yet been disposed of. After hearing the learned counsel, although with regard to the propriety to grant the impugned order, could be examined on various grounds; yet, keeping in view the practice of this Court to keep interference with the discretionary interim orders passed by the High Court, at the minimum we refrain from doing so. Therefore, for this reason alone, we do not consider it a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. The petitioner, however, is directed to make a request to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court for a very early disposal of the Intra Court Appeal. This petition with the foregoing observations, is accordingly dismissed. M.BA./L‑24/S Leave refused.