2009 PLP 1530 (YLR)
BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION-Petitioner Versus PROVINCIAL OMBUDSMAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1530 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Khilji Arif Hussain and Arshad Noor Khan, JJ |
| Parties | BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION-Petitioner Versus PROVINCIAL OMBUDSMAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Establishment of the Office of Ombudsman for the Province of Sindh Ordinance (V of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1530 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Establishment of the Office of Ombudsman for the Province of Sindh Ordinance (V of 1991) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1530 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Khilji Arif Hussain and Arshad Noor Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1530 (YLR) (BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION-Petitioner Versus PROVINCIAL OMBUDSMAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Masroor Ahmad Alvi for Petitioner.
- 4&5. It appears that some complaint was filed against the petitioner in the Regional Office of Provincial Ombudsman at Mirpurkhas. After receiving the notice, petitioner appeared and filed his reply and as per learned Advocate proceeding was attended twice by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for transfer of case file at Karachi. The learned Provincial Ombudsman called the file from the Regional Office, Mirpurkhas to its office at Karachi. It appears that after calling the file, respondent No.3, who is complainant in the matter has applied for re-transfer of the case to the Regional Office, as the complaint is resident of Mirpurkhas. The petitioner's grievance is that the petitioner is an Educational Board and it is difficult for the petitioner to attend the proceeding at Mirpurkhas Office.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.9 & 14
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Petitioner against whom complaint was filed in the Regional Office of Provincial Ombudsman at place `M', filed application for transfer of case filed at place `K'
After calling the case file complainant, had applied for re-transfer of the case to the Regional Office as the complainant was resident of place `M'
Grievance of petitioner was that it being an Education Board difficult for the petitioner to attend proceeding at place "M"
Petitioner Board was expected to approach the Provincial Ombudsman and file proper application giving reasons why the matter should be heard at place `K' and not at place and Ombudsman could pass appropriate orders on such application
Orders passed by the Ombudsman for hearing the matter at place `K' or at place M' were of administrative nature, which normally could not be interfered with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction
Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Granted.
2. Deferred.
3. Granted, subject to all just exceptions. 4&
5. It appears that some complaint was filed against the petitioner in the Regional Office of Provincial Ombudsman at Mirpurkhas. After receiving the notice, petitioner appeared and filed his reply and as per learned Advocate proceeding was attended twice by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for transfer of case file at Karachi. The learned Provincial Ombudsman called the file from the Regional Office, Mirpurkhas to its office at Karachi. It appears that after calling the file, respondent No.3, who is complainant in the matter has applied for re-transfer of the case to the Regional Office, as the complaint is resident of Mirpurkhas. The petitioner's grievance is that the petitioner is an Educational Board and it is difficult for the petitioner to attend the proceeding at Mirpurkhas Office. Be that as it may, it is for the petitioner to approach the Provincial Ombudsman and file a' proper application, giving reasons why the matter should be heard at Karachi and not at Mirpurkhas and learned Ombudsman can pass appropriate orders on such application. The orders passed by the learned Ombudsman for hearing the matter at Karachi or at Regional Office at Mirpurkhas are of administrative nature, which normally could not be called interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petition has no merit and is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T. /B-13/K Petition dismissed.