1997CLC591 (PLP)
Prof. Dr. MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus VICE‑CHANCELLOR, ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY, BAHAWALPUR and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1997CLC591 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Raja Muhammad Khurshid, J |
| Parties | Prof. Dr. MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus VICE‑CHANCELLOR, ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY, BAHAWALPUR and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act (IV of 1975)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997CLC591 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act (IV of 1975)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997CLC591 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Muhammad Khurshid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997CLC591 (PLP) (Prof. Dr. MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus VICE‑CHANCELLOR, ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY, BAHAWALPUR and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.30 & 24‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.l & 2‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Temporary injunction‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Two members of Senate nominated as members of Syndicate‑‑‑Nomination of such members was challenged‑‑‑Application for restraining nominated members of Senate (respondents) from attending meeting of Syndicate‑‑‑Main Constitutional petition was still pending wherein precisely same point was involved as stressed in application for interim relief‑‑‑Members of Senate nominated on Syndicate were elected from Senate against which petitioner had made representation which failed and appeal was also proved abortive‑‑‑Taking prima facie view of such matter, respondents could not be restrained to attend meetings of Syndicate till their election was either found to be void or illegal‑‑‑Application for interim relief had thus, no force and same was dismissed‑‑‑Respondent's attendance of meetings would, however, be subject to final decision of Constitutional petition. M. Shamsher Iqbal Chughtai, Advocate.
Judgment & Decree
Writ Petition No.699 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.3 of 1996/BWP, decided on 2nd August, 1996. ‑‑‑‑Ss.30 & 24‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.l & 2‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Temporary injunction‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Two members of Senate nominated as members of Syndicate‑‑‑Nomination of such members was challenged‑‑‑Application for restraining nominated members of Senate (respondents) from attending meeting of Syndicate‑‑‑Main Constitutional petition was still pending wherein precisely same point was involved as stressed in application for interim relief‑‑‑Members of Senate nominated on Syndicate were elected from Senate against which petitioner had made representation which failed and appeal was also proved abortive‑‑‑Taking prima facie view of such matter, respondents could not be restrained to attend meetings of Syndicate till their election was either found to be void or illegal‑‑‑Application for interim relief had thus, no force and same was dismissed‑‑‑Respondent's attendance of meetings would, however, be subject to final decision of Constitutional petition. M. Shamsher Iqbal Chughtai, Advocate. This petition is moved with the prayer that respondents Nos.3 and 5 be restrained to attend the meeting of the Syndicate to be held on 21‑8‑1996 on the ground that they were not validly elected. In this context, it is alleged that no procedure is laid down in the Statutes framed under section 30 of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act, 1975 in respect of the election of two members of the Senate to be elected as members of the Syndicate as provided under section 24(1)(iv). It was, therefore, urged that the respondents be restrained to attend the meetings of the Syndicate.
2. As pointed out above, the main petition is yet pending and precisely the same point is involved therein. It is, however, clear that the members nominated on the syndicate were elected from Senate against which the petitioner had made a representation which failed and appeal was also preferred which too failed. Therefore, taking a prima facie view, it appears that respondents Nos.3 and 5 cannot be restrained to attend the meetings of the Syndicate till their election is either held void or illegal.
3. The petition has no force and the same is dismissed, with the observation that their attendance of the meetings will be subject to final decision of this writ petition. A.A./M‑240/L Application dismissed.