1994 PLP 14 (SCMR)
HASSAN JAMIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 14 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Fazal Ilahi Khan and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | HASSAN JAMIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 14 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 14 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Fazal Ilahi Khan and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 14 (SCMR) (HASSAN JAMIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 28‑11‑1992 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Writ Petition No. 51 of 1990). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Impugned orders of Departmental Authorities had not been filed‑‑‑Petitioner's contention was that there were no orders as no action had ever been taken on his application submitted to Departmental Authorities and because of such inaction cause for complaint had arisen to him‑‑‑Petitioner, however, had not submitted any satisfactory evidence to the effect that he bad indeed submitted any application on which some action had to be taken‑‑‑Petitioner's averment that he had submitted requisite applications sometime in 1975/1976 which had remained un-disposed of until today became highly doubtful when he complained of such inaction only in 1989, some 13/14 years after the submission of applications and that too to the Prime Minister who was not the statutory Authority directly empowered to deal with the matter‑‑‑Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions). Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1993. NASIM HASAN SHAH, CJ. ‑‑‑This order will dispose of the above two petitions as the orders of the High Court, which are impugned therein are in identical terms. ' The story narrated by the petitioners is entirely airy fairy. The impugned orders of the departmental authorities have not been filed. In response to this objection, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no orders as no action has ever been taken on the applications of the petitioners and that it is this inaction which is the basis of his complaint. But, unfortunately, he has not adduced any satisfactory evidence to show that he had indeed submitted any application on which some action had to be taken. His averment that he had submitted the applications sometimes in 1975/1976 which have remained un-disposed of until today becomes highly doubtful when he found that he complained of this inaction only in 1989. Some 13/14 years after the submission of the application and that too to the Prime Minister who was not the statutory authority directly empowered to deal with the matter. These petitions are frivolous and misconceived. A.A./H‑176/S Petitions dismissed.