1988 PLP 2259 (CLC)
GUL ZAMAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 2259 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, JJ |
| Parties | GUL ZAMAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 2259 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 2259 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 2259 (CLC) (GUL ZAMAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muzffarul Haq for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Other remedies open Constitutional petition, competency of‑‑Constitutional petition filed by petitioner for de‑sealing of a mosque which was sealed under order of Sub‑Divisional Magistrate was dismissed by High Court being incompetent with observation that petitioner at first instance should move the Magistrate and in case his grievance was not met with by the Magistrate, petitioner could move appeal before Sessions Judge or before High Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.‑‑The petitioner is seeking for the de‑sealing of a mosque which was sealed about four years back under the orders of a S. D. M. as a consequence of fight which had taken place between two parties and which had resulted in the death of .one of the residents of the locality. It seems proper that the petitioner should move the S.D.M. in the first instance and in case the S.D.M. does not meet the grievance of the petitioner, then the petitioner can move appeal before the Sessions Judge or before the High Court. This petition is, therefore, incompetent and is hereby dismissed as such. We are quite confident that if properly moved the S.D.M. concerned will pass an appropriate order without delay. H. B. T./G‑63/K Petition dismissed.