P L D 1970 Dacca 50 (PLP)
PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN‑ — Defendant‑Appellant Versus MEHERUDDIN KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1970 Dacca 50 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | A. S. Chowdhury and A. H. Khan, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN‑ — Defendant‑Appellant Versus MEHERUDDIN KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1970 Dacca 50 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1970 Dacca 50 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: A. S. Chowdhury and A. H. Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1970 Dacca 50 (PLP) (PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN‑ — Defendant‑Appellant Versus MEHERUDDIN KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- T. H. Khan, Seni6r Government Pleader for Appellant.
- Ruhullslam:for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: _28th May 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
Government of India Act, 1935, S. 240 (3) ‑ Dismissal of Government servant‑Opportunity of showing cause against propos ed action‑Provisions of S. 240(3) mandatory ‑ Failure to give opportunity to show cause‑Violation of constitutional requirement
Relief sought for declaring order passed without comply ing with constitutional provisions of S. 240 (3), as void
Plaintiff, in circumstances, held entitled to declaration sought for‑Order which is void must be declared to be so and there is no scope of discretion in matter. The plaintiff was not given any opportunity to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed. This was indeed a violation of a constitutional requirement as laid down in section 240 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. An order passed in violation of the constitutional provision was void. The Court refused to entertain the argument that the declaration asked for is discretionary, for in case of violation of a constitutional provision the aggrieved person is entitled to the declaration as asked for. Whenever there is a breach of restrictions imposed by the statute by the Government or the Crown the matter is justiciable and the party aggrieved is entitled to suitable relief at the hands of the Court. High Commissioner of India and another v. I. M. Lall P L D 1948 P C 150; State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid A I R 1954 S C 245 and Federation of Pakistan v. Mrs. A. V. Isaacs P L D 1955 S C (Pak.) 431.
Judgment & Decree
A. H. KHAN, J.
‑I agree. A. E. Appeal dismissed.