2007 PLP 2243 (YLR)
MAQSOOD ALI and others — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Local Government and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 2243 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sabihuddin Ahmed and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | MAQSOOD ALI and others — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Local Government and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2243 (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 2243 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sabihuddin Ahmed and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2243 (YLR) (MAQSOOD ALI and others — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Local Government and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Muzaffarul Haq for Petitioners.
- Rafiq Rajori, A.A.-G. for Respondents Nos.1, 2, 3, 6 and 7.
- Manzoor Ahmad for Respondent No.4.
- Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent Nn.4 admits that the plot in question was reserved for a park and states that the said respondent would be willing to help any agency to develop the park. As regards the allegations that the plot is being used by the police for parking its vehicles contained in para.4 of the petition, it is most regrettable to record that despite service of notice 10 years ago, neither the respondents Nos.2 and 6 nor any other functionary of the Provincial Government has cared to file an affidavit or even comments explaining their version of facts. As such we are bound to accept the contention of the petitioners affirmed on oath. Indeed Mr. Rajori requested for some more time to obtain assistance but we are convinced that in the circumstances granting of further indulgence would have amounted to gross injustice. In view of the admitted position, we would direct the respondent No.6 to cause removal of vehicles (if any) from the plot and the respondent No.4 should take proper step for development of park. The petition stands disposed of.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Allegation of misuse of plot by authorities which was reserved for a park
Authorities had admitted that plot in question was reserved for a park and that authorities would be willing to help any Agency to develop the park-Allegations that plot in question was being used by the police for parking its vehicles, despite service of notice 10 years ago, neither any authority nor any other functionary of the Provincial Government had cared to file affidavit or even comments explaining their version of facts
Contention of petitioners were accepted/affirmed on oath and Authorities were directed by High Court to cause removal of vehicles (if any) from the plot in question and should take proper steps for development of park.
Judgment & Decree
Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent Nn.4 admits that the plot in question was reserved for a park and states that the said respondent would be willing to help any agency to develop the park. As regards the allegations that the plot is being used by the police for parking its vehicles contained in para.4 of the petition, it is most regrettable to record that despite service of notice 10 years ago, neither the respondents Nos.2 and 6 nor any other functionary of the Provincial Government has cared to file an affidavit or even comments explaining their version of facts. As such we are bound to accept the contention of the petitioners affirmed on oath. Indeed Mr. Rajori requested for some more time to obtain assistance but we are convinced that in the circumstances granting of further indulgence would have amounted to gross injustice. In view of the admitted position, we would direct the respondent No.6 to cause removal of vehicles (if any) from the plot and the respondent No.4 should take proper step for development of park. The petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./M-63/K Petition allowed