1986 PLP 533 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD LUQMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LOCAL GOVERNMENT and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 533 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD LUQMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LOCAL GOVERNMENT and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 533 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 533 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 533 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD LUQMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LOCAL GOVERNMENT and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Gulzar Ahmad Pirzada for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No.l.
- Ali Hazoor Najfi for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 18th December, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.166 & 167‑‑Punjab Local Councils. (Appeal) Rules, 1980‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973)) Art. 199‑‑Assistant Director, Local Government‑‑‑ Appellate Jurisdiction of‑‑Assistant Director, Local Government being not appellate Authority as visualized by Punjab Local Councils (Appeal) Rules, 1980, no appeal, held, was competent before him‑‑Jurisdiction assumed and order passed by him in exercise thereof would be without lawful authority and of no legal effect in circumstances. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Order passed in appeal by Government functionary having no such powers, held, would be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence by High Court in 'exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
Gulzar Ahmad Pirzada for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent No.l. Ali Hazoor Najfi for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 18th December, 1984. This writ petition calls in question the legality and validity of an order of Assistant Director, Local Government, Bhakkar, dated 22‑11‑1983 on the ground of want of jurisdiction.
2. The dispute relates to two employees of local council. The petitioner, vide resolution No.6 passed by the Town Committee on 15‑1‑1983 was promoted permanently to the post of Octroi Superintendent. Respondent No.2 filed an appeal against that resolution before an Assistant Director, Local Government, Bhakkar who is respondent No. 1, who accepted the appeal, vide impugned order, dated 22‑11‑1983 and nullified the resolution of the Town Committee, dated 15‑1‑1983.
3. During the hearing of this writ petition, it was contended that respondent No.l racked jurisdiction because he was not an appellate authority visualized by the Punjab Local Councils (Appeal) Rules, 1980 nor he figured anywhere under the Appeal Rules, 1960 and even under the Octroi Rules, 1964.
4. After examination of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and the earlier laws both the learned counsel were in agreement that no appeal was competent before respondent No.l. That being the position, the jurisdiction assumed and in exercise thereof the impugned order passed would be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It may be possible for the aggrieved person to invoke the supervisory powers of the Provincial Government for redress of any grievance on making out a case that the resolution was illegal or in violation of any law but that by itself would be no ground for refusing relief to the petitioner in the present proceedings when a case of want of jurisdiction has clearly been made out.
5. The net result‑is that this writ petition is accepted and the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. In view of the fact that the respondent adopted a reasonable attitude, there will be no order as to costs. H.B.T Petition accepted.