1986 PLP 1454 (SCMR)
The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE — Appellant Versus EHSANUL HAQ SETHI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1454 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Shafiur Rahman, Zaffar Hussain Mirza, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE — Appellant Versus EHSANUL HAQ SETHI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1454 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1454 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Shafiur Rahman, Zaffar Hussain Mirza, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1454 (SCMR) (The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE — Appellant Versus EHSANUL HAQ SETHI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik M. Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Sh. Ziaullah, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. M. Aslam, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent No.1.
- Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Assistant Advocate-General Punjab and Rao M. Yousuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.2
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1986.
- Malik M. Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Sh. Ziaullah, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. M. Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No.1.
- Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Assistant Advocate‑General Punjab and Rao M. Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 26-11-1983 passed in Case No. 62412015 of 1982).
Arts. 212(3) & 203--Punjab Service Tribunals Act, (XI of 1974), S.4--Service Tribunal while disposing appeal of civil servant as infructuous also dealt with question of competency of appeal under S.4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 and, held, that same was competent, rejecting thereby contention of Authority that Art. 203 of Constitution was a bar to entertainment of appeal--Consideration of such legal question being purely an academic exercise left by Supreme Court to be considered in some other appropriate case.
Judgment & Decree
Malik M. Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant. Sh. Ziaullah, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. M. Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No.1. Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Assistant Advocate‑General Punjab and Rao M. Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2 Date of hearing: 21st May, 1986. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑In this appeal the adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report against the respondent for the reporting period 1‑1‑1981 to 9‑6‑1981 were communicated to him by the Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore, by his letter dated 1st of October, 1982, which were impugned before the Punjab Service Tribunal, but while the appeal was pending they were expunged from his report. Accordingly, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal as having become in fructuous. " not all. Before arriving at this conclusion question of the competency of the appeal under S.4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, and held that it was " competent while rejecting the contention of the appellant that Article 203 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was a bar to the entertainment of the appeal. As the issue was not alive and the Service Tribunal had disposed of the appeal as being infructuous, the consideration of the legal question, in our view, is purely an academic exercise, and we would leave it to be considered in some other appropriate case. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. M.Y.H. Appeal dismissed.