2007 PLP 1913 (SCMR)
FAUZIA QURESHI and another — Applicant/Petitioner Versus REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1913 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas, Mian Shakirullah Jan and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | FAUZIA QURESHI and another — Applicant/Petitioner Versus REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) Ordinance (XXXIV of 1985) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1913 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) Ordinance (XXXIV of 1985) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1913 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas, Mian Shakirullah Jan and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1913 (SCMR) (FAUZIA QURESHI and another — Applicant/Petitioner Versus REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmad Awais, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 6-6-2005 in Writ Petition No.5775 of 2005 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Leave to appeal. was granted by Supreme Court to consider, inter alia, the points that whether the impugned order and action were both illegal and High Court could not have passed the same 'in its constitutional jurisdiction and whether the said orders had been passed in violation of rules of natural justice and without notice to the affected and interested parties; that whether the demolition and reconstruction of west wing of the High Court Building was illegal and violative of the Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) Ordinance, 1985 and that whether act of demolition and reconstruction could be justified that the building would serve the prime purpose and the High Court was more keen and desirous to preserve the old architectural beauty of the High Court Building and whether the same was -being carried out by Provincial Communication .and Works Department
Petitioner being not party to the proceedings before High Court, delay of 43 days in filing the petition was condoned in the larger interest of justice
All conditions for grant of stay order being available, respondents were directed to maintain status quo till the decision of appeal. Applicant in person. Ms. Nahida Mehboob Elahi, D.A.-G. and Sajjad Hussain Shah, A.A.-G. Punjab on Court Notice.
Judgment & Decree
HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.
This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 6-6-2005 in Writ Petition No.5775 of 2005 whereby the said writ petition which was registered as such on the reference of the Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and was disposed of with the direction to Secretary C&W Department to proceed further to execute the building layout/line plan in respect of the 8 Court Room as is required by the Lahore High Court which was earlier submitted by C&W Department on 20-3-2004 and further the said Secretary to prepare estimate of the said proposed building and submit the same to the Registrar of the said High Court within 10 days positively, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
3. We find that a case of grant of leave to appeal is made oat which is accordingly granted to consider inter alia the following points:-- (i) Whether the impugned order and impugned action were both illegal and the High Court could not have, passed the same in its constitutional jurisdiction and whether these orders were passed in violation of rules of natural justice and 'without notice to the affected and interested parties? (ii) Whether the demolition and reconstruction of west wing of the High Court Building was illegal and violative of the Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) Ordinance, 1985? and (iii) Whether act of demolition and reconstruction could be justified that the building would serve the prime .purpose and the High Court was more keen and desirous to preserve the old architectural beauty of the High Court Building and whether the same was being carried out by Communication and Works Department, Punjab?
4. The petition is reported to be barred by 43 days as per office note. -Since the petitioner was not party to the proceedings before the High Court, therefore, the period for filing of C.P.L.A. is enlarged in the larger interest of justice. Further keeping in view the facts and the arguments made prima facie a case is made out and the balance of convenience being also in favour of the petitioners, so also irreparable loss would be caused, hence, respondents are directed to maintain status quo till the decision of appeal which be listed at an early date subject to administrative approval of Honourable Chief Justice. N.H.Q./F-19/SC Leave granted.