1990 PLP 1450 (SCMR)
AHMAD ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL, PUNJAB POLICE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1450 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahntan and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | AHMAD ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL, PUNJAB POLICE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1450 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1450 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahntan and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1450 (SCMR) (AHMAD ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL, PUNJAB POLICE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Ahmed Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. 31 of 1988).
- Yousaf Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. 34 of 1988).
- Muhammad Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General, Sh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan for Respondents (in C.P. No.34 of 1988).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.P.No. 31 of 1988).
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgments of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 15‑10‑1987 and 23‑9‑1987 passed in Appeal No. 264 of 1987 and 206 of 1987, respectively). ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ Petitioners, after dismissal of their appeals by Departmental Authorities filed revisions before Inspector‑General Police, but came to Service Tribunal only when they came to know that no such revision was competent‑‑‑Service Tribunal refused to condone delay on the ground that petitioners had no right to file revision or second appeal to Inspector‑General Police and time so consumed could not be allowed for extension of time prescribed for tiling appeal before Tribunal‑‑‑View taken by Service Tribunal not suffering from any legal infirmity, no case for leave to appeal thus was made out‑‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioners, by two separate Petitions under Article 212(3) of the Constitution seek leave to appeal against the two separate judgments of the Service Tribunal dated 15‑10‑1987 and 23‑9‑1987 whereby their appeals before the Tribunal were held to be barred by time and dismissed.
2. In both the Petitions, it appears that after their appeals were dismissed by the departmental authorities they filed Revisions before the Inspector‑General Police and came to the Service Tribunal only when they were told that no such revision petition was competent. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay on the ground that the Petitioners had no right to file revision or second appeal to the Inspector‑General Police and the time consumed could not be allowed for extension of time prescribed for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
3. The view taken by the Service Tribunal suffers from no legal infirmity and no case for leave to appeal is made out, hence leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./A‑632/S Leave refused.