1991 PLP 344 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD BOOTA — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 344 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BOOTA — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 344 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 344 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 344 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BOOTA — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th July, 1989.
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 3-6-1986 passed in Case No. 293 of 1986).
S.4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)
Finding of Service Tribunal on merits was based on admission of petitioner himself that he had received certain amount unauthorisedly from one of the complainants
No question of public importance thus arose in view of such an admission which could require further examination by Supreme Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑This Petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution is shown to be barred by 142 days. However, the judgment of the Tribunal itself by narration of the facts in para. 4 makes the petition within limitation.
2. The finding of the Service Tribunal on merits is based on an admission of the petitioner himself that he received from one of the applicants/complainants a sum of Rs.200 which he had no authority under the law or in the discharge of his duties to realise.
3. In view of such an admission no question of law of public importance arises which may require further examination in this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. H.B.T./M‑1096/S Leave refused.