YLR 2002

2002 PLP 3190 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ASGHAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Major MUHAMMAD IBRAR and others‑‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petitions Nos.493 940, 1209, 1241, 1378, 1517, 1679, 1794, 1926, 1965, 1983, 2159, 2216, 2803 and 2861 of 2001, decided on 23rd February, 2001.
Honorable Judges
Jawwad S. Khawaja, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2002 PLP 3190 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Jawwad S. Khawaja, J
Parties MUHAMMAD ASGHAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Major MUHAMMAD IBRAR and others‑‑‑Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 3190 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 3190 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3190 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASGHAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Major MUHAMMAD IBRAR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Interference of Monitoring Cell in matters pending before Courts/forums‑‑‑Petitioners in their Constitutional petitions had called in question interference by Monitoring Cells in matters pending before Courts/forums between petitioners and respondents‑‑‑Law Officer had stated that clear cut instructions had been issued by relevant authorities and Monitoring Teams had no jurisdiction or authority to interfere in matters which were sub judice before a competent Court/forum and that any person, aggrieved of interference by a Monitoring Cell, had right to approach Provincial Monitoring Cell for redressal of his grievance‑‑‑High Court observed that any interference by Monitoring, Cell in matters which were pending adjudication before competent fora was wholly without lawful authority. Kh. Abdus Sami for the Private Respondents. Ejaz Ahmed Chaudhry, Addl.A.‑G.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑‑‑Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Interference of Monitoring Cell in matters pending before Courts/forums‑‑‑Petitioners in their Constitutional petitions had called in question interference by Monitoring Cells in matters pending before Courts/forums between petitioners and respondents‑‑‑Law Officer had stated that clear cut instructions had been issued by relevant authorities and Monitoring Teams had no jurisdiction or authority to interfere in matters which were sub judice before a competent Court/forum and that any person, aggrieved of interference by a Monitoring Cell, had right to approach Provincial Monitoring Cell for redressal of his grievance‑‑‑High Court observed that any interference by Monitoring, Cell in matters which were pending adjudication before competent fora was wholly without lawful authority. Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner. Kh. Abdus Sami for the Private Respondents. Ejaz Ahmed Chaudhry, Addl.A.‑G. This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.493, 940, 1209, 1241, 1378, 1517, 1679, 1794, 1926, 1965, 1983, 2159, 2216, 2803 and 2861 of 2001. These petitions call in question the interference by Monitoring Cells in contentious matters pending before Courts/forums between the respective petitioners in the aforesaid petitions and the private respondents.

2. The learned Law Officer has stated that there are clear cut instructions issued by the relevant authorities that Monitoring Teams have no jurisdiction or authority to interfere in matters, which are sub judice before a competent Court/forum. The learned Law Officer has also contended that any person, aggrieved of interference by a Monitoring Cell in spite of the aforesaid instructions, has the right to approach the Provincial Monitoring Cell for redressal of his grievances.

3. I have considered the aforesaid contentions alongwith other submissions made by the learned Law Officer in an order of even date passed in writ petition titled "Usman Saeed Hakeern Qureshi v Capt. Laeeque Ahmad, etc. (Writ Petition. No 780 of 2001). In view of the findings recorded in the said order, the petitions mentioned in para. 1 of this order, are allowed and it is declared that any interference by the Monitoring Cells in matters, which are pending adjudication before competent fora is wholly without lawful authority. H.B.T./M‑1275/L Petition allowed.