P L D 1958 Supreme Court (Pak (PLP)
A. B. A. HALEEM‑Appellant Versus (1) LT. COL. AZIZ K. M. KHAN, (2) DR. ABDUL
| Citation | P L D 1958 Supreme Court (Pak (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | A. B. A. HALEEM‑Appellant Versus (1) LT. COL. AZIZ K. M. KHAN, (2) DR. ABDUL |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1958 Supreme Court (Pak (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1958 Supreme Court (Pak (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1958 Supreme Court (Pak (PLP) (A. B. A. HALEEM‑Appellant Versus (1) LT. COL. AZIZ K. M. KHAN, (2) DR. ABDUL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. Nasir‑ud‑Din, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Zahir Abbas, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 25th February 1958,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated 19th December 1956 , in Writ Petition No. 201 of 1956). Supreme Court‑--Appellate jurisdiction to be exerciser) only ill concrete matter, in actual controversy, to be decided as a living issue, ‑Constitution of Pakistan, Art.
158. In order that the Supreme Court should exercise its appellate Jurisdiction in any matter, it is essential that there should exist between the parties, a concrete matter in actual controversy to be decided as a living issue. Where the appellant had preferred his appeal in the capacity of Vice‑Chancellor of a University, which office he had since ceased to hold, and he had no personal interest in the subject‑matter of appeal, and further, the order in favour of the respondent had become of no effect, since his tenure of the office of Dean of a Faculty, which was in question, had terminated, and thus there was no longer any live issue in the case, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal observing that to proceed further would be of academic interest only. Not represented : Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, J.‑This appeal suffers from defects, which render it appropriate that we should not proceed further with it. The point which the case raises is as .to the competency of a person to continue as Dean of a Faculty, in the Karachi University, when he has ceased to be Head of a Department included within that Faculty. It was raised in the form of a writ petition before the High Court of west Pakistan by one Lt. Col. AZIZ K M. Khan, claiming to continue in the office of Dean of the 'Faculty of Medicine and to enjoy the privileges attached to that office, for ' period of three years, despite the fact that during that interval, I had ceased to be Head of the Department of Surgery. He complained that by certain actions on the part of Professor A. B. A Haleem, then Vice‑Chancellor of the University, he had been deprived of certain privileges, on the ground of his having ceased to be head of a Department. The High Court granted a writ, requiring Prof. Haleem, the Vice‑Chancellor to recognize Lt. Col. Khan as Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, and to take certain other action to assure him of his rights as Dean. Against this order, Prof. Haleem has preferred the present appeal. At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Nasiruddin for the appellant Prof. Haleem (the principal respondent Lt. Col. Khan and the respondent Dr. Siddiqui being absent and un-represented) stated. (1) that Prof. Haleem had ceased to be Vice‑Chancellor some time ago, and had been replaced by a Mr. Hashmi ; (2) that he had no power‑of‑attorney from Mr. Hashmi and was not instructed to move for permission to Prof. Haleem to withdraw from the appeal, or for the bringing of the name of Mr. Hashmi on the record in his place ; and (3) that Lt. Col. Khan's tenure of the office of Dean had expired, by lapse of time. There are thus two good reasons why the appeal should now be dismissed. Firstly, the appellant has no authority; to continue the appeal, as it was preferred by him in the capacity of Vice- Chancellor, which office he has ceased to hold. He has no personal interest in the subject‑matter of the appeal. Secondly, the order of the High Court, in favour of Lt. Col. Khan is now of no effect, since his tenure of the office in question has terminated. In consequence of this even, there is no live issue left in the case. In order that this Court should exercise its appellate Jurisdiction in any matter, it is essential that there should exist between the parties, a concrete matter in actual controversy to be decided as a living issue. In the existing circumstances, , no such matter appears to exist between the parties, and to proceed further with the appeal would be of academic interest only. [See in this connection Sun Life Assurance Co. v. Jenvis (1944AC11)]. We accordingly dismiss this appeal, but make no order as to costs. A. H. Appeal dismissed.