1983 PLP 566 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAFEEZ-Appellant Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 566 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL HAFEEZ-Appellant Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 566 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 566 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 566 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAFEEZ-Appellant Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- S. M. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 26th October, 1982.
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- S. M. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 26-6-1973 passed in Writ Petition No. 1033/S/73). -- Art. 185 (3) read with Art. 199-Petitioner filing writ petition shortly after filing suit for some relief-Suit, however, withdrawn before hearing of writ petition-Leave to appeal granted to consider effect of withdrawal of suit and as to whether High Court, had not erred in dismissing writ petition in limine. -- Art. 199-Writ petition-Petitioner found to have suppressed material fact in writ petition-Held, rightly denied relief by High Court under discretionary jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ Art. 199‑Writ petition‑Petitioner found to have suppressed material fact in writ petition‑Held, rightly denied relief by High Court under discretionary jurisdiction. Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. S. M. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing : 26th October, 1982. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, ACTG. C. J.‑Leave was granted to the appellant in this case mainly to consider whether the High Court had not erred in dismissing his writ petition In limine, in view of the contentions raised before this Court at the bearing of the C.P.L.A.
2. The facts giving rise to the appeal, briefly, are that Abdul Hafeez was employed in the Board 'of Secondary Education. He was charge‑sheeted on 31‑8‑1971 and was compulsorily retired on 7‑1‑1972. He filed an appeal before the Board which was dismissed on 10‑2‑1972. He there filed a suit against his retirement on 11‑5‑1973 and shortly thereafter on 19‑5‑1973 also filed a writ petition challenging his compulsory retirement before the High Court. In the writ petition he made no mentions that he had also filed a suit in the Civil Court with regard to the same matter. The learned Judge in Chamber dismissed the writ petition with the following observation :‑ "Besides, the fact that the petitioner availed of an adequate remedy in the nature of a Civil Suit before coming to this Court would also disentitle him from invoking this special jurisdiction for obtaining the same relief. In view of the failure of the petitioner to disclose the fact that ‑ he had filed the suit and having already availed of an alternative remedy, this writ petition is not competent and is dismissed in limine." Feeling aggrieved by this order the appellant filed a petition before this Court and Leave was granted inter alia to consider the effect of withdrawal of the suit by the appellant before the petition was heard by the High Court.
3. We have beard the learned counsel for the appellant only on the question of the `suppression' of facts referred to in the impugned order because it was mainly on that account that the learned High Court Judge had dismissed his writ petition. Having considered the matter we feel that the appellant had indeed suppressed a material fact in the writ petition and, therefore, he was rightly denied relief under its discretionary jurisdiction by the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as having no merit. Appeal dismissed.