2003 PLP 2410 (YLR)
Syed ADNAN AMANAT — Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through FEDERAL MINISTER OF EDUCATION and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 2410 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Ijaz Ahmad and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ |
| Parties | Syed ADNAN AMANAT — Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through FEDERAL MINISTER OF EDUCATION and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 2410 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 2410 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Ijaz Ahmad and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 2410 (YLR) (Syed ADNAN AMANAT — Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through FEDERAL MINISTER OF EDUCATION and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gulzar Butt for Appellant.
- Muhammad Ramzan Watto for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S.3
Affiliation with foreign insti tutions
Appellant had contended that the respondent/educational institution had committed fraud with the appellant as it had no authority to get affiliation with the foreign institutions without permission of the Government and the appellant had incurred huge expenditure by paying fees to the said educational institution which was -not validly recognized institution
Appellant had already filed complaint against the said educational institution which was pending adjudication before the competent Court-- Appellant had been directed by the Single Judge of High Court to approach Controlling Authority of the University Grants Commission for redressal of his grievances-- Learned Single Judge had not closed the remedy available to the appellant and had only refused to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant
Impugned order did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and was maintained by the High Court
High Court dismissed the appeal accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Appellant filed Constitution Petition No.22714 of 1998, with the following prayer:-- (I) Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, may be directed to stop the functioning of all the institutions established by respondent No. 3. (II) The respondent No.3 may be directed not to continue any sort of computer programmes/course/diploma or certi ficate in his colleges/institutions unless strictly regularised legally in accordance with law. (III) The respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4, may also be directed to have a strict watch in future over the functions of the institutions established by respondent No.3 and in case of illegalities the institution may be closed permanently. (IV) The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 may also be directed to have a watch over respondent No.3, so he may not use the names of any Foreign University to trap the students. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by learned Single Judge with the observation that appellant should approach respondent No.
1. Hence the present I. C. A.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that private respondents committed fraud with the appellant as is evident from the prospect published by the private respondent; she further submits that private respondents have no authority to affiliate their institutions with the foreign institution without permission of the Government; she further submits that appellant is penalized by inaction of the private respondent and incurred huge expenditure by paying fees to the institutions, which was not validly recognized institutions, therefore, private respondents committed fraud with the appellant.
3. We have considered the contention of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. It is admitted fact that the appellant has already filed complaint against the private respondents, which is pending adjudication before the competent Court. Appellant was directed to approach respondent No. 1, for redressal of his grievance. In this view of the matter, remedy was not closed by this Court of the appellant. Learned Single Judge, refused to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, of learned Single Judge. In view of what has been discussed above, this I.C.A. has no force and the same is hereby dismissed. S.M.A.H./A-642/L Appeal dismissed.