1987 PLP 483 (MLD)
ADIL MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 483 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and Haider Ali Pirzada, JJ |
| Parties | ADIL MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sind Permanent Resident Certificate Rules, 1971 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 483 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Permanent Resident Certificate Rules, 1971 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 483 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and Haider Ali Pirzada, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 483 (MLD) (ADIL MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rasool Bux Unar for Petitioner.
- Ibrahim Memon, Addl. A.-G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th August, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
Rr. 6 & - 8--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Appeal against order of District Magistrate refusing Permanent Certificate to petitioner--A number of documents, produced by petitioner in his appeal before Commissioner, not referred to by Commissioner in his order--Case of petitioner, held, had not been considered fully by Commissioner in circumstances--Case remanded to Commissioner for reconsideration after notice to petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
Rasool Bux Unar for Petitioner. Ibrahim Memon, Addl. A.-G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th August, 1986. MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.--The petitioner has felt aggrieved against the orders of District Magistrate, Thatta and the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, who have denied him the Permanent Residence Certificate.
2. The submission of Mr. Rasool Bux Unar in short is that the documents, which he had filed alongwith his appeal, have been left out of consideration by the Commissioner and on the other hand the Commissioner has taken into consideration the report of the Assistant Commissioner, Sujawal which was not shown to the petitioner or his father. It is an admitted position that the petitioner's father has a domicile of Thatta and of course it is further admitted that he has about 100 acres of land in that District. A statement has been made at the bar by Mr. Rasool Bux Unar that the petitioner has built a three rooms house with an attached bath but the same have been treated as only an Autaq by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner has confirmed that judgment. We also find that there are a number of documents shown to have been produced by the petitioner in his appeal before the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, but the same have not even been referred by the Commissioner. It, therefore, appears to us that the case of the petitioner has not been considered fully by the Commissioner and we would, therefore, remand the matter for reconsideration by the Commissioner. Hyderabad Division, after notice to petitioner.
3. Mr. Ibrahim Memon, Addl. A.G. has submitted that the various requirements of the rules for the Permanent Residence Certificate had not been complied with by the petitioner. However, we find that there is no mention in the order of the District Magistrate or the Commissioner in respect of those points. It would be better if the Commissioner decides the appeal of the petitioner after taking into consideration the various points required in respect of the Permanent Residence Certificate Rules.
4. The petition is, therefore, allowed in the above terms. The case is remanded back to the Commissioner for reconsideration of the appeal of the petitioner. The Commissioner, Hyderabad Division is directed to decide the appeal within two months from the communication of this order to him. M. Y. H./A-50/K Case remanded.