2023 PLP 501 (SCMR)
ATTIQ UR REHMAN — Petitioner Versus Sh. TAHIR MEHMOOD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2023 PLP 501 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Ayesha A. Malik, JJ |
| Parties | ATTIQ UR REHMAN — Petitioner Versus Sh. TAHIR MEHMOOD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP 501 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP 501 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Ayesha A. Malik, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP 501 (SCMR) (ATTIQ UR REHMAN — Petitioner Versus Sh. TAHIR MEHMOOD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. G.M. Choudhary, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 04.02.2020 passed in W.P. No. 67 of 2020)
Art. 185(3)
Interim orders passed by the High Court
Interference in such orders by the Supreme Court
Settled policy of the Supreme Court is not to readily interfere in the interim orders passed by the High Court
Desirable course of action is that the court hearing the case finally decides the same before it is brought before the Supreme Court as piecemeal adjudication is not desirable
Only exception is when the interim relief granted by the High Court is arbitrary or unreasonable or reflects abuse of power or wanton exercise of discretion resulting in miscarriage of justice. Muhammad Sadiq v. Bashir Ahmad PLD 1966 SC 717; Multan Development Authority v. Muhammad Ramzan PLD 1989 SC 629; Salah-Ud-Din v. Mst. Zia Farhat 1996 SCMR 1528 and Federation of Pakistan v. Shafiq Ul Hassan 2020 SCMR 2119 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.
Respondent No.1 through a constitutional petition challenged the initiation of inquiry against him on the charges of which he already stood exonerated in three previous inquiries. He contended before the High Court that the Chief Minister s Inspection Team has no authority to initiate the said inquiry against him. On the basis of these submissions the High Court issued notices to other side and granted interim relief to respondent No.1 on 03.1.2020 to the effect that no adverse orders be passed against him. The said interim relief was further extended vide order dated 04.2.2020.
2. It is the settled policy of this Court not to readily interfere in the interim orders passed by the High Court. It is desirable that the court hearing the case finally decides the same before it is brought before this court as piecemeal adjudication is not desirable. The only exception is when the interim relief granted by the High Court is arbitrary or unreasonable or reflects abuse of power or wanton exercise of discretion resulting in miscarriage of justice
1. We have examined the impugned interim order and find that it does not suffer from any grave illegality or abuse of process or gross injustice. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed and leave refused. MWA/A-4/SC Petition dismissed. 1 Muhammad Sadiq v. Bashir Ahmad, PLD 1966 SC 717; Multan Development Authority v. Muhammad Ramzan, PLD 1989 SC 629; Salah-Ud-Din v. Mst. Zia Farhat, 1996 SCMR 1528; Federation of Pakistan v. Shafiq Ul Hassan, 2020 SCMR 2119.