1992 PLP 480 (CLC)
S. KHURSHID ALAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING LIMITED,
| Citation | 1992 PLP 480 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, CJ. and MukhtarAhmed Junejo, J |
| Parties | S. KHURSHID ALAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING LIMITED, |
| Primary Law | Sindh Cooperative Housing Authority Ordinance (V of 1982)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 480 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Cooperative Housing Authority Ordinance (V of 1982)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 480 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, CJ. and MukhtarAhmed Junejo, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 480 (CLC) (S. KHURSHID ALAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING LIMITED,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Mahmoodul Hasan and Jamil Raza Zaidi for Petitioner.
- S.M. Nurul Hassan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(a)(g), 4 & 6‑‑‑Authority established under Ordinance, had no power to amend bye‑laws of Society. Hashmatullah v Sindh Cooperative Housing Authority and others C.P. No.D‑934 of 1983; Abdul Rehman v. PECH Society and others C.P. No.D‑972 of 1984; Usman Ali Issani v. PECH Society and others C.Ps.Nos.D‑980 of 1984; D‑304; D‑305; D‑375 and D‑376 of 1985 ref.
Judgment & Decree
S. Mahmoodul Hasan and Jamil Raza Zaidi for Petitioner. S.M. Nurul Hassan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th November, 1989. AJMAL MIAN, CJ. ‑‑‑One of the points in issue is as to the legality of the amendments in the bye‑laws of the Societies made by the Sindh Cooperative Housing Authority in exercise of powers contained under Ordinance V of 1982. The above point has been adjudicated upon by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hashmatullah v. Sindh Cooperative Housing Authority and others (C.P. No.D‑934/83), decided on a 30th May, 1989, in which it has been held that the Sindh Cooperative Housing Authority has no such power to amend the bye‑laws of a Society. We would, therefore, follow the above judgment on the above point and would take the same view. 2. As regards the cancellation of the allotment of plots, the grievance of the petitioners is that the same was done without any notice and without hearing them. In C.P. No.D‑972 of 1984 (Abdul Rehman v. PECH Society and others) and C.P. No.D‑980 of 1984 (Usman Ali Issani v. PECH Society and others), a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the petitions by consent order. In subsequent 4 petitions, namely, C.P. No.D‑304 of 1985, D‑305 of 1985, D‑375 of 1985, and D‑376/1985, we followed the above consent order and disposed of the above petitions on 27‑11‑1989 in terms thereof. We would dispose of the above petitions in terms of the above orders, namely:‑‑ "(i) That both the parties shall maintain status quo as obtaining today, and (ii) That respondent No.1 after hearing the petitioners will decide the question, whether the petitioners' cases were covered by the recommendation of the Enquiry Committee and, whether any action is warranted keeping in view the facts of the cases and principles of natural justice. (iii) The petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs:' H.B.T./S‑775/K Order accordingly.