2014 PLP 320 (SCMR)
ASAD I. A. KHAN — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 320 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ, Jawwad S. Khawaja and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | ASAD I. A. KHAN — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 320 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 320 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ, Jawwad S. Khawaja and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 320 (SCMR) (ASAD I. A. KHAN — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Anwar Kamal, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Dr. Parvez Hassan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sardar Iqbal Shahid, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.2 and 6.
- Hafiz S. A. Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.3 and 4.
- Date of hearing: 6th November, 2013.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from order dated 6-9-2013 of the Islamabad High Court, passed in W.P. No.3275 of 2013.)
Arts. 199 & 185(3)
Interim relief by High Court in a constitutional petition filed under Art. 199 of the Constitution
Scope
Petitioner instituted a constitutional petition before the High Court challenging appointment of Managing Director, NESPAK along with an application for interim relief with the prayer that notification of appointment of Managing Director in question may be suspended till decision of the constitutional petition
High Court refused to grant interim relief to the petitioner on the principle that relief sought was leaning towards a final assessment, therefore such relief should not be granted
Adjudication on merits by the High Court, in the present case, would have necessarily led to decision of the constitutional petition pending before it, which was not the object of the law
No interference was called for in the impugned order of High Court
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order dated 6-9-2013 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner has been partly allowed.
2. It is to be noted that the petitioner instituted a writ petition challenging the appointment of Amjad Ali Khan, respondent No.5, as Managing Director, NESPAK, along with the application for interim relief with the following prayer:-- "It is respectfully prayed that the operation of the impugned notification of 15-8-2013 by the Company Secretary, NESPAK and decision dated 15-8-2013 of the Board of Directors, NESPAK may be suspended till the decision of the writ petition."
3. The learned High Court while examining the case of the petitioner and relying upon the principle that "the relief when sought is leading towards a final assessment, such relief should not be granted at this stage", the approach of the learned High Court was correct.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the respondent No.5 has been appointed as Managing Director, NESPAK vide notification dated 15-8-2013, in violation of directions of this Court dated 10-7-2013, therefore, interference is called for.
5. We are not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner, because adjudication on merits, as has been stressed by learned High Court, would necessarily lead to decision of the writ petition pending before it finally, which is not the object of the law, in view of the principle noted hereinabove.
6. Therefore, under the circumstances, no interference in the impugned order is called for. Thus for the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. MWA/A-36/SC Petition dismissed.