1999SCMR2487 (PLP)
Sahibzadi GHAZALA ISMAT HASSAN KHAN SABRI — Petitioner Versus VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB,
| Citation | 1999SCMR2487 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, Sh. Ijaz Nisar |
| Parties | Sahibzadi GHAZALA ISMAT HASSAN KHAN SABRI — Petitioner Versus VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999SCMR2487 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999SCMR2487 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan, Sh. Ijaz Nisar.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999SCMR2487 (PLP) (Sahibzadi GHAZALA ISMAT HASSAN KHAN SABRI — Petitioner Versus VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st January, 1999:
- Petitioner in person assisted by her father Masud-ul-Hasan Khan Sabri, Advocate Supreme Court.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 185(3)
Re-marking of answer books-- Petition for leave to appeal
Petitioner/candidate in her Constitutional petition filed before High Court prayed for direction to University to get her answer books re-marked
Answer books of relevant papers as per comments of University, having since been destroyed, re-marking could not be ordered, but as per order of High Court, re-checking of marks was done in presence of petitioner to which she did not raise any objection
Petitioner in her application for leave to appeal, which was barred by 144 days, had contended that University had not re-checked answer books but had only re-counted marks given on title page of answer book
Plea raised by petitioner necessitated an investigation into facts which could not be directed in proceedings before Supreme Court
Delay of 144 days in filing petition for leave to appeal was 'sought to be condoned by petitioner on ground that due to serious injuries caused to her in accident, she remained in hospital for medical treatment-- Petitioner in her application for condonation of delay, had not stated as to when she sustained alleged injuries and for how much time she remained in hospital, and petitioner had not placed on record any documentary evidence in support of ground urged by her for condonation of delay
Explanation tendered by petitioner in not approaching Supreme Court within time, suffered from vagueness
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed on merits as well as on ground of limitation. Petitioner in person assisted by her father Masud-ul-Hasan Khan Sabri, Advocate Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner in person assisted by her father Masud-ul-Hasan Khan Sabri, Advocate Supreme Court. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st January, 1999: Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 29-4-1998, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in W.P.No.4495 of 1996.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner filed a Constitutional petition praying therein that respondent No. l be directed to get her English Papers 'A' and 'B' of B.A. Examination held in November, 1995, under Roll No.19040, remarked. The learned Judge in Chambers after calling for the record and parawise comments, dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, with the following observations:
"(2) Report and parawise comments were sent for. The same have been received and perused, according to which, petitioner's papers were checked wherein it transpired that she had got 24 out of 100 marks in Paper-A and 38 out of 100 marks in Paper-B in English Subject. Pass marks were 6 of
200. Therefore, to enable her to pass in English she was given 4 grace marks. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for re-marking of the papers. Learned counsel for the respondents was asked to get instructions. According to him the papers have since been destroyed under the rules. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on file copy of the rules as well as the order on the basis of which papers pertaining to year 1995 have since been destroyed. In these circumstances, re-marking cannot be ordered. However, re-checking was done in the presence of the petitioner where she did not raise any objection. No further order is required to be passed in this writ petition, which is accordingly disposed of."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have not re-checked the answer books and only recounted the marks given on the title page of the answer book.
4. We are afraid, the plea raised by the petitioner necessitates an investigation into the facts which cannot be directed in these proceedings. Furthermore, the petition is barred by 144 days. The delay is sought to be condoned on the ground that due to serious injuries caused to the petitioner in an accident she remained in hospital for medical treatment. The explanation tendered by the petitioner in not approaching this Court within time suffers from vagueness. It is not stated in the application for condonation of delay as to when she sustained the alleged injuries and for how much time she remained in the hospital. Furthermore, no documentary evidence has been placed on record in, support of the grounds urged for condonation of the delay. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of limitation, and leave declined. H.B.T./G-42/S Petition dismissed.