1994 PLP 2424 (MLD)
Dr. SABIR ZAMEER SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Agricultural Department, Lahore-Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 2424 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Dr. SABIR ZAMEER SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Agricultural Department, Lahore-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 2424 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 2424 (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: 1994 PLP 2424 (MLD) (Dr. SABIR ZAMEER SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Agricultural Department, Lahore-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hasanaat Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
- Mian Abdus Sattar Najam, Advocate-General with Saleem Murtaza Secretary, Agriculture Department for Respondent.
- 2. The learned Advocate-General and the Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of the Punjab, state that they were under an impression that there was only one judgment of the Supreme Court, which was passed in C.A. No. 673/1990 and were not aware of the judgment in C.As. Nos.190 and 191 of 1988. They undertake that directions' contained in the judgment in the aforesaid two cases shall be given due effect to without any further delay.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 187(2)
Petition for implementation of directions of Supreme Court
Two judgments of Supreme Court were required to be given effect to
Respondents stating that they were under impression that there was only one judgment of Supreme Court and were not aware of the second judgment
Respondents had undertaken that directions contained in the judgments in both the cases would be given due effect to without any further delay
Petition being fructified was disposed of with direction to the petitioner to furnish copies of judgments of Supreme Court, the implementation of which he was seeking, within specified time.
Judgment & Decree
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in addition to C.A. No. 673/1990 decided on 21-11-1990 the Supreme Court had also decided C.As. Nos. 190 and 191/1988 on the same date, in which certain directions were issued as incorporated in para. 9 of the judgment, which have not been given effect to.
2. The learned Advocate-General and the Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of the Punjab, state that they were under an impression that there was only one judgment of the Supreme Court, which was passed in C.A. No. 673/1990 and were not aware of the judgment in C.As. Nos.190 and 191 of 1988. They undertake that directions' contained in the judgment in the aforesaid two cases shall be given due effect to without any further delay. In view of the above, the petition fructifies and is disposed of. The petitioner is, however, directed to furnish copies of the judgments of the supreme Court, the implementation of which he seeks, to the respondent within week from today. A.A./S-486/L?????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.