P L D 1978 Lahore 765 (PLP)
ALLAH BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JHANG, AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1978 Lahore 765 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Karam Elahee Chauhan, J |
| Parties | ALLAH BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JHANG, AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Laws (Continuance in Force) Order (I of 1977) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1978 Lahore 765 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Laws (Continuance in Force) Order (I of 1977) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1978 Lahore 765 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1978 Lahore 765 (PLP) (ALLAH BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JHANG, AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Para. 2-Chief Martial Law Administrator, powers of-Extend both to promulgation of Regulations as well as Orders of a Legislative nature-Chief Martial Law Administrator-Can equally issue Orders authorising Zonal Administrators in their own Zones to promulgate Zonal Martial Law Orders of a Legislative nature.
Judgment & Decree
The depot of the petitioner was cancelled by the District Magistrate ride his order dated the 19th October 1977. The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed as time barred. The petitioner has come up in writ petition against the aforesaid proceedings and orders to this Court. Learned counsel submitted that be was not in a position to challenge the order of the Additional Commissioner dismissing his appeal on the ground of limitation. He conceded that the appeal of his client was time barred and that finding is in no way erroneous. In that view of the matter be tried to raise certain legal points. Firstly, he submitted that the Chief Martial Law Administrator bad issued Order No. 3 whereby he bad appointed Zonal Administrators and had authorised them to issue "Orders" in their own Zones. His argument was that Martial Law Order No. 3 in this respect was without lawful authority inasmuch as the Chief Martial Law Administrator could issue only Regulations and not Orders. The contention has no merit. According to the Laws (Continuance in Form) Order No. 1 of 1977, the Chief Martial Law Administrator can Issue both the "Regulations" as well as "Orders. His next submission was that even if the Chief Martial Law Administrator can issue "Orders", those "Orders" could not be of a legislative nature but should be confined merely to executive functions of the Government. The plea has no substance. A perusal of the Laws Continuance in Force Order, 1977, clearly shows that the Chief Martial Law Administrator can issue "Orders" of a legislative nature. The Laws Continuance in Force Order itself is of a legislative nature which concedes the power of the Chief Martial Law Administrator, even to amend the Constitution. In this context therefore, to argue that the Chief Martial Law Administrator cannot issue legislative Orders is not justified. To carry his point further, the learned counsel then argued that the Chief Martial Law Administrator could not have authorised the Zonal Administrator to issue legislative "Orders". This is a repetition of the earlier submission and once it is held that the Chief Martial Law Administrator can issue Orders of a legislative nature then obviously he can equally issue such Orders which may authorise Zonal Administrators in their a own Zones to promulgate Zonal Martial Law Orders of a legislative nature. No other point was argued. The result is that this writ petition has no merit and is, dismissed in limine. S. A. H. Petition dismissed.