SCMR 2007

2007 PLP 105 (SCMR)

Sardar NASEER AHMED MOOSIANI — Petitioner Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE/CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Appeal No.1453 of 2006 and Civil Petition No.92-Q of 2006, decided on 18th August, 2006.
Honorable Judges
Javed Iqbal and Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2007 PLP 105 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Javed Iqbal and Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, JJ
Parties Sardar NASEER AHMED MOOSIANI — Petitioner Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE/CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA and others — Respondents
Primary Law Balochistan Local Government Ordinance (XVII of 2001)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 105 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Balochistan Local Government Ordinance (XVII of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 105 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 105 (SCMR) (Sardar NASEER AHMED MOOSIANI — Petitioner Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE/CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Balochistan Local Government Ordinance (XVII of 2001)

Representation

  • Syed Ayaz Zahoor, Advocate Supreme Court and M.W.N. Kohli, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Salahuddin Mengal, Advocate-General for Official Respondent.
  • Kamran Murtaza, Advocate Supreme Court and Mir Aurangzeb, Advocate-on-Record for Intervener.
  • JAVED IQBAL, J.---Heard Syed Ayaz Zahoor, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner, Mr. Salahuddin Mengal, learned Advocate-General, Balochistan for official respondents and Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned Advocate Supreme Court for officiating Nazim namely Mr. Abdul Raheem Kurd, scanned the entire record with their eminent assistance and perused the judgment impugned carefully. We are inclined to grant leave, inter alia, on the following points:

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 25-7-2006 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, passed in Civil Petition No.223 of 2006).

S. 21

Notification No.5-41/2004(BLCEA)/Vol-VIII/2692-2700, dated 12-5-2006

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)

Resignation

Genuineness and authenticity

Determination

Chief Minister, powers of

Grievance of petitioner was that he being Nazim had denied having tendered any resignation from the seat but alleged resignation was accepted by the Government

Validity

Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether legal and factual aspects of the controversy were appreciated in its true perspective by High Court, while dismissing constitutional petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner; whether genuineness and authenticity of resignation allegedly tendered by petitioner was above board or otherwise; whether Chief Minister had acted with diligent application of mind while exercising powers as conferred upon him under S.21 of Balochistan Local Government Ordinance, 2001, and accepted alleged resignation tendered by petitioner; whether acceptance of resignation smacked of mala fides specially when a categoric denial was made for tendering such resignation on behalf of petitioner and published in different newspapers; whether petitioner had performed his functions as Nazim after tendering alleged resignation and it was in the knowledge of Provincial Government; whether petitioner had any legal right to claim seat of Nazim on the basis of Notification No.5-41/2004(BLCEA)/Vol-VIII/2692-2700, dated 12-5-2006, whereby officiating charge of Nazim was given to him and whether judgment passed by High Court was in consonance with the law declared by Supreme Court in case titled Muhammad Munir-ul-Haq v. Muhammad Latif Chaudhry, reported as 1992 SCMR 2135.? Muhammad Munir-ul-Haq v. Muhammad Latif Chaudhry 1992 SCMR 2135; Farzand Ali v. Province of West Pakistan through Secretary Department of Agriculture, Government of West Pakistan, Lahore PLD 1970 SC 98; Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 1473; Secretary, Government of Punjab Food and Cooperation Department v. Shamoon Bahadur PLD 1979 SC 835; Province of Punjab through Deputy Director, Food Rawalpindi Region v. Muhammad Iqbal 1984 SCMR 334; Kuchwar Line and Stone Co. Ltd. v. Secretary of State AIR 1937 Pat. 65; Abraham Reuben v. The Karachi Municipality AIR 1929 Sindh 69; Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra AIR 1978 SC 694; Imtiaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali PLD 1963 SC 382; Khuda Bukhsh v. Khushi Muhammad PLD 1976 SC 208; Mst. Rehmat Bibi v. Punnu Khan 1986 SCMR 962, Muhammad Ibrahim Munshey v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1968 SC 1; WAPDA v. Abdul Rashid Dar 1990 SCMR 1513; Province of Punjab v. Ikramul Haq 1986 SCMR 1994; Mazhar Ali v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 435; Messrs Macdonald Layton Constrain Ltd. v. Punjab Employees Social Security Institution PLD 1991 SC 1055; Chairman District Screening Committee, Lahore v. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi PLD 1976 SC 258 and Messrs Mumtaz Industries v. IDBP PLD 1991 SC 729 rel. Salahuddin Mengal, Advocate-General for Official Respondent. Kamran Murtaza, Advocate Supreme Court and Mir Aurangzeb, Advocate-on-Record for Intervener.

Judgment & Decree

JAVED IQBAL, J.

Heard Syed Ayaz Zahoor, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner, Mr. Salahuddin Mengal, learned Advocate-General, Balochistan for official respondents and Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned Advocate Supreme Court for officiating Nazim namely Mr. Abdul Raheem Kurd, scanned the entire record with their eminent assistance and perused the judgment impugned carefully. We are inclined to grant leave, inter alia, on the following points: (i) Whether the legal and factual aspects of the controversy have been appreciated in its true perspective by the learned High Court while dismissing the writ petition preferred on behalf of Sardar Naseer Ahmed Mossiani (petitioner)? (ii) Whether the genuineness and authenticity of the resignation allegedly tendered by the petitioner is above board or otherwise? (iii) Whether the Chief Minister had acted with diligent application of mind while exercising powers as conferred upon him under section 21 of the Balochistan Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and accepted the alleged resignation tendered by the petitioner? (iv) Whether the acceptance of resignation smacks of mala fides specially when a categoric denial was made for tendering such resignation on behalf of petitioner and published in different newspapers? (v) Whether the petitioner had performed his functions as Nazim after tendering the alleged resignation and it was in the knowledge of Provincial Government? (vi) Whether Sardar Naseer Ahmed Mossiani (petitioner) has any legal right to claim the seat of Nazim on the basis of Notification bearing No.5-41/2004(BLCEA)/Vol-VIII/26-92-2700, dated 12th May, 2006 whereby officiating charge of Nazim was given to him? (vii) Whether the judgment impugned is in consonance with law laid down by this Court in case Muhammad Munir-ul-Haq v. Muhammad Latif Chaudhry 1992 SCMR 2135 based on case-law enunciated in the following authorities:-- Farzand Ali v. Province of West Pakistan through Secretary Department of Agriculture, Government of West Pakistan, Lahore PLD 1970 SC 98; Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 1473; Secretary, Government of Punjab Food and Cooperation Department v. Shamoon Bahadur PLD 1979 SC 835; Province of Punjab through Deputy Director, Food Rawalpindi Region v. Muhammad Iqbal 1984 SCMR 334; Kuchwar Line and Stone Co. Ltd. v. Secretary of State AIR 1937 Pat. 65; Abraham Reuben v. The Karachi Municipality AIR 1929 Sindh 69; Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra AIR 1978 SC 694; Imtiaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali PLD 1963 SC 382; Khuda Bukhsh v. Khushi Muhammad PLD 1976 SC 208; Mst. Rehmat Bibi v. Punnu Khan 1986 SCMR 962, Muhammad Ibrahim Munshey v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1968 SC 1; WAPDA v. Abdul Rashid Dar 1990 SCMR 1513; Province of Punjab v. Ikramul Haq 1986 SCMR 1994; Mazhar Ali v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 435; Messrs MacDonald Layton Constrain Ltd. v. Punjab Employees Social Security Institution PLD 1991 SC 1055; Chairman District Screening Committee, Lahore v. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi PLD 1976 SC 258 and Messrs Mumtaz Industries v. IDBP PLD 1991 SC

729. The appeal be fixed at some early date and till its disposal the operation of Notifications bearing No.5-41/2004(BLCEA)/Vol-VIII/2636-46 dated 21st April, 2006 and No.5-41/2004(BLCEA)Vol-VIII-2692-2700 dated 12th May, 2006 shall remain suspended. M.H./N-16/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.