1998 PLP 668 (SCMR)
ABDUL BADSHAH and 9 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUR RASHID and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 668 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hafeez Memon and Irshad Hasan Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL BADSHAH and 9 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUR RASHID and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | North‑West Frontier Province Building Regulations, 1985‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 668 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: North‑West Frontier Province Building Regulations, 1985‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 668 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hafeez Memon and Irshad Hasan Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 668 (SCMR) (ABDUL BADSHAH and 9 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUR RASHID and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑Regln. 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Petitioners' only contention was that their appeal before Appeal Board against order of Authority involved important questions affecting rights of petitioners but their appeal was decided without hearing them‑‑‑Petitioners claimed that they would be satisfied if they were given due opportunity of hearing and matter in question was decided after considering contentions urged by their counsel‑‑‑Counsel for respondents agreed that appeal be decided afresh after hearing petitioners and their counsel and that 'he would have no objection if matter was remanded to Appeal Board‑‑‑Case was remanded to Appeal Board for deciding the same afresh after hearing petitioners and their counsel according to law.
- Aitzaz Ahsan, Advocate Supreme Court and Aman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Karam Elahi Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Akbar Swati, Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. for Respondents Nos.4 and 5.
- Malik Hamid Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court and Additional Advocate‑General for Respondent No.6.
- Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1996.
- 2. Mr. Akbar Swati, Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. is present and in reply he submitted that in the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, he would agree that the appeal needs to be decided afresh after hearing the petitioners and their counsel and had no objection to the matter being remanded for the purpose. Submission made by the learned Advocate‑General is only proper and reassuring. Agreeing, therefore, with both the learned counsel, the impugned order passed by the Appeal Board is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appeal Board for deciding. it afresh after hearing the petitioners and their counsel according to law and regulations pertaining to the matter. The appeal may be decided expeditiously, preferably, within one month. The petition is disposed of with the above observation.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 26‑10‑1994, of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, passed in W. P. No. 911/1994).
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Regln. 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Petitioners' only contention was that their appeal before Appeal Board against order of Authority involved important questions affecting rights of petitioners but their appeal was decided without hearing them‑‑‑Petitioners claimed that they would be satisfied if they were given due opportunity of hearing and matter in question was decided after considering contentions urged by their counsel‑‑‑Counsel for respondents agreed that appeal be decided afresh after hearing petitioners and their counsel and that 'he would have no objection if matter was remanded to Appeal Board‑‑‑Case was remanded to Appeal Board for deciding the same afresh after hearing petitioners and their counsel according to law. Aitzaz Ahsan, Advocate Supreme Court and Aman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Karam Elahi Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Akbar Swati, Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. for Respondents Nos.4 and
5. Malik Hamid Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court and Additional Advocate‑General for Respondent No.6. Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1996. ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J‑‑‑Leave counsel for the petitioners contended that the appeal filed by the petitioners‑ before the Appeal Board involved important questions, including interpretation of para. 11 of the N.‑W.F.P. Building Regulation, 1985, affecting the rights of the petitioners, but the Appellate Tribunal decided the appeal without hearing the petitioners. Learned counsel in this connection referred to the decision of the Appellate Board contained in pages 51, 52 and 53 of the paper‑book and the notice appearing at page 76, which appeared to support his contention. Having so submitted, learned counsel further stated that he would be satisfied if the petitioners are given due opportunity of hearing and the matter is decided after considering the contentions urged by their counsel at the hearing. '
2. Mr. Akbar Swati, Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. is present and in reply he submitted that in the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, he would agree that the appeal needs to be decided afresh after hearing the petitioners and their counsel and had no objection to the matter being remanded for the purpose. Submission made by the learned Advocate‑General is only proper and reassuring. Agreeing, therefore, with both the learned counsel, the impugned order passed by the Appeal Board is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appeal Board for deciding. it afresh after hearing the petitioners and their counsel according to law and regulations pertaining to the matter. The appeal may be decided expeditiously, preferably, within one month. The petition is disposed of with the above observation. A.A./A‑39/S Case remanded.