1989 S C (PLP)
LIAQAT ALI and 11 others Petitioners Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 S C (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | LIAQAT ALI and 11 others Petitioners Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and others Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 S C (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 S C (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 S C (PLP) (LIAQAT ALI and 11 others Petitioners Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Oadir Bakhsh, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. A. Oadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioners were constables on the establishment of the Superintendent of Police Faisalabad. On 11‑6‑1983, they went on strike and marched through the bazars of Faisalabad raising slogans ; against the District Magistrate. They were served with show‑cause notices by the (A Superintendent of Police and heard m person. They were dismissed from service. They filed appeals before the Deputy Inspector‑Deneral of Police which were dismissed. They then approached the Senice Tribunal but without any success They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioners we are of the vii w that no substantial question of law of public importance arises for our consideration. The petitioners were given opportunity to defend themselves by the Superintendent of Police. They did not file any II3 written reply to the show‑cause notices and when they appeared before the Superintendent of Police in person they merely begged to be pardoned. These are therefore, not fit cases for interference by this Court. Leave is refused. M.B.A./L‑23/S Petitions dismissed.