2007 PLP 3191 (YLR)
UMER GUL — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Transport, Karachi
| Citation | 2007 PLP 3191 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, C.J. and Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery, J |
| Parties | UMER GUL — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Transport, Karachi |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 3191 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 3191 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, C.J. and Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 3191 (YLR) (UMER GUL — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Transport, Karachi). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Sarwar Khan, Addl. A.-G. Sindh for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 199 & 187
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
Implementation/execution of order
Petitioner had approached High Court for implementation of order of Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority and Ombudsman
High Court would not act as an executing court of any Authority/Court or Tribunal except the Supreme Court in view of provisions of Art.187 of Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Constitutional petition though was not .maintainable, but after issuance of notices to 'the concerned authorities, it had -been .brought on record that order in question had been implemented and nothing remained to be done further
' Petition stood dismissed, in circumstances. Ail Nawaz Memoir and M.M. Vassu for the Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
In this Constitutional petition .the petitioner has sought the following relief: (a) To direct the respondent No.5 to implement the orders passed by its appellate authority respondent No.2 Ann. "F" in appeal under Rule 96-A of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969 and so also passed by the Honourable Ombudsman upholding the orders of respondent No.2 being lawful authority, as the board of respondent No.3 or respondent No.5 after passing of the orders did not challenge the same in accordance with law, and allow the petitioner the route permits for the required necessity of they route. (b) Any other relief this Honourable Court may deem necessary. (c) Cost of petition.
2. From the perusal of the memo. of petition and the prayer reproduced hereinabove, it is absolutely clear that the .petitioner has approached this Court for implementation/execution of the order of the Secretary to Government of Sindh, Labour and Transport Department/Chair man, Provincial Transport Authority Sindh. Mr. Sarwar, learned 'Addl. A. G. has filed a statement. along with Annexures `A-1' and `A-2' according to which, the order of the Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority has been implemented and nothing further remains to Abe done on the part of the concerned authorities.
3. Even otherwise, from the perusal of the prayer clause, it transpires that the petitioner has approached this Court for implementation/execution of the order of the Chairman. .Provincial Transport Authority Sindh, and the .Ombudsman. This Court does not act as an executing Court of any authority/Court or Tribunal except the Supreme Court in view of the provisions of Article 187 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
4. Although the' constitutional petition is not maintainable yet after issuance of notices to the concerned authorities,. it has been brought on record that the order in question has been implemented and nothing remains to be done further. Accordingly, this constitutional petition stands dismissed in limine. H.B.T./U-9/K Petition dismissed.