2003 PLP 1639 (MLD)
AKRAM HUSSAIN BUTT — Petitioner Versus L.D.A. through Director-General and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1639 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AKRAM HUSSAIN BUTT — Petitioner Versus L.D.A. through Director-General and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1639 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1639 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1639 (MLD) (AKRAM HUSSAIN BUTT — Petitioner Versus L.D.A. through Director-General and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- Mian Muzaffar Hussain, Legal Advisor for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S.37
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition recovery of dues
Petitioner had prayed that the respondents initiated proceedings against him without issuing any notice to him, thus the action of the respondents was in violation of principle of natural justice
Counsel for the petitioner was not present before the Court
High Court proceeded to dispose of the matter on merits
Director, Estate Management, Lahore Development Authority was directed to proceed in the matter after issuing notice to the petitioner and finalize the matter after providing proper hearing' to the petitioner within two months henceforth and to submit its report to the Deputy Registrar Judicial of the High Court within the stipulated time
Respondents had been directed to file report and parawise comments but had failed to file the same and had not filed any application for vacation of stay granted by the High Court-- Respondents were restrained to dispossess the petitioner from the property in question till the time fixed by the High Court for passing an order in the matter
Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
List of old cases was sent to the respective members of the Bar with the following note:-- "Old cases will not be adjourned except with prior adjustment and with consent of opposite counsel." The learned counsel of the petitioner did not get the case adjusted in the terms of aforesaid note. It appears that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter any more. Instead of dismissing the same. I intend to dispose of the same on merits as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "M. Haleem and others v. H. Muhammad Nasim and others (PLD 1970 SC 270).
2. The sole grievance of the petitioner which reveals from the contents of writ petition that the respondents initiated proceedings against the petitioner without issuing the notice to him, therefore, action of the respondents is hit by the principle of natural justice.
3. The learned legal advisor of the respondents submits that the respondents had initiated proceedings against the petitioner in the administrative capacity, therefore, the question for providing of personal hearing to the petitioner, does not arise.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the respondents and perused the record, after perusing the contents of writ petition. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, let a copy of writ petition be sent to Director Estate Management. LDA who is directed to proceed in the matter after issuing notice to the petitioner and finalize the matter after providing proper hearing to the petitioner preferably within 2 months from today till 29-6-2002. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within stipulated period. Learned legal advisor or the respondents is directed to notify the order of this Court to the Director Estate Management, LDA for necessary action and compliance.
5. In C.M. No. 1/97 on 17-7-1997, the following order was passed:-- "Notice.
In the meantime, the petitioner's possession shall not be disturbed." It is pertinent to mention here that respondents were directed to file report and parawise comments vide order dated 17-7-1997 but the respondents failed to file the same and to file any application for vacation of aforesaid order of this Court. In this view of the matter, the respondents are restrained to dispossess the petitioner from the shop in question till the aforesaid date. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. S.M.A.H./A-321/L Order accordingly