1990SCMR1512 (PLP)
WAHEED ASGHAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990SCMR1512 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | WAHEED ASGHAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1512 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR1512 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR1512 (PLP) (WAHEED ASGHAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑‑Expunction of observation against petitioner recorded by High Court‑‑‑Justification for‑‑‑Constitutional petition in which observations complained of were made was dismissed in limine‑‑‑No positive finding with regard to the implication of petitioner was recorded‑‑‑Objection was being taken to an observation which was the result of first impression, tentative in character and only incorporating a likelihood and nothing more‑‑‑High Court could Justifiably at that stage and in those proceedings make such an observation‑‑ Occasion for petitioner for expunction of remarks could have arisen only if a positive finding to that effect had been recorded and that having not been done, no case for expunction of remarks was made out‑‑‑Departmental proceedings against petitioner if any, had to proceed and conclude on its own merits and on material brought out before competent authority and not on those tentative remarks‑‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- 3. Ch.Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the petitioner was not a party to those proceedings. He had no notice of it. He had expressed no grievance on his transfer. From Gujranwala. These remarks were not only uncalled for and without notice to him but have led to the initiation of departmental proceedings against him likely to result in penalty being inflicted. It is, therefore; necessary that they should be expunged.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 14‑3‑1987 passed in Writ Petition No. 1153 of 1987). Date of hearting: 29th July, 1989.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN,J
The petitioner and Electric Inspector is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court dated 14th pf March, 1987 with a view to get an observation recorded in the judgment/order whereby his service career as an employee has been seriously jeopardized expunged.
2. The petitioner was posted as Electric Inspector Gujranwala. He was transferred from there and instead Muhammad Farooq Siddiqui was posted in his place. A number of persons who claimed to be consumers of Electricity in Gujranwala filed a Constitution Petition challenging the posting of Mr. Muhammad Farooq Siddiqui for various reasons. In examining the locus standi of those Petitioners the High Court made the following observation:‑
"It appears that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands and have moved this petition at the behest of the Electric Inspector already posted at Gujranwala for some ulterior motive."
3. Ch.Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the petitioner was not a party to those proceedings. He had no notice of it. He had expressed no grievance on his transfer. From Gujranwala. These remarks were not only uncalled for and without notice to him but have led to the initiation of departmental proceedings against him likely to result in penalty being inflicted. It is, therefore; necessary that they should be expunged.
4. The Constitution Petition in which the observations complained of were made was dismissed in limine. No positive finding with regard to the implication of the respondent was recorded. Objection is being taken to an observation which is the result of first impression, tentative in character and only incorporating a likelihood and nothing more. The High Court could justifiably at that stage and in those proceedings make such an observation. An occasion for the petitioner could have arisen only if a positive finding to that effect had been recorded. That clearly was not done.
5. No case for expunction of the remarks: is made out. The departmental' proceedings, if any, have to proceed and conclude on its own merits and on the material brought out before the competent authority and not on these tentative remarks. Leave to appeal is refused. . A.A./W‑77/S Leave refused.