P L D 1991 Lahore 256 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YAR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and another — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1991 Lahore 256 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1991 Lahore 256 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1991 Lahore 256 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1991 Lahore 256 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YAR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Yousuf Ali Khan for Petitioner.
- Talib Haider Rizvi, Maqbool Elahi Malik, A: G. and Talib Hussain Awan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss..2, 4 & 6-1 -Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Transaction of business by Board of Revenue
No approval of Government necessary for transaction of business by the Board
Transfer of revision petition by a Senior Member, Board of Revenue to another member with consent of parties, being judicial exercise of jurisdiction, required no prior approval of Government--Member, Board of Revenue to whom revision petition had been transferred having been competently appointed as a Member, Board of Revenue had authority to decide such revision petition
Neither order of transfer nor disposal of revision by such Member suffered for lack of jurisdiction
Petitioner could not plead lack of jurisdiction in the Member, Board of Revenue to adjudicate revision petition when no such objection was raised at the time such revision was entrusted to the Member nor when same was heard and decided by him--Discretion in Constitutional jurisdiction could not be exercised in favour of a person who had not approached the Court bona fide and with clean hands--Order passed by Member, Board of Revenue whereby order of Court below was maintained being question of fact did not call for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. [p. 2621 A
Art. 199
Discretion in Constitutional jurisdiction could not be exercised in favour of a person who had not approached the Court bona ride and with clean hands. [p. 262] A
Judgment & Decree
(a) West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957)
Ss..2, 4 & 6-1 -Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Transaction of business by Board of Revenue
No approval of Government necessary for transaction of business by the Board
Transfer of revision petition by a Senior Member, Board of Revenue to another member with consent of parties, being judicial exercise of jurisdiction, required no prior approval of Government--Member, Board of Revenue to whom revision petition had been transferred having been competently appointed as a Member, Board of Revenue had authority to decide such revision petition
Neither order of transfer nor disposal of revision by such Member suffered for lack of jurisdiction
Petitioner could not plead lack of jurisdiction in the Member, Board of Revenue to adjudicate revision petition when no such objection was raised at the time such revision was entrusted to the Member nor when same was heard and decided by him--Discretion in Constitutional jurisdiction could not be exercised in favour of a person who had not approached the Court bona fide and with clean hands--Order passed by Member, Board of Revenue whereby order of Court below was maintained being question of fact did not call for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. [p. 2621 A (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Art. 199
Discretion in Constitutional jurisdiction could not be exercised in favour of a person who had not approached the Court bona ride and with clean hands. [p. 262] A Yousuf Ali Khan for Petitioner. Talib Haider Rizvi, Maqbool Elahi Malik, A: G. and Talib Hussain Awan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st March, 1991.