PLC(CS) 1976

1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))

KHADIM HUSSAIN Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL

Jurisdiction / Court
1976 P L C C.S.T. 5(1)
Decided Date
Case No. 115 of 1974, decided on 7th August 1974.
Honorable Judges
Saad Saood Jan, Chairman, Ashfaq Ali Khan and Khalid Farooq Akbar, Members
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court 1976 P L C C.S.T. 5(1)
Bench Members Saad Saood Jan, Chairman, Ashfaq Ali Khan and Khalid Farooq Akbar, Members
Parties KHADIM HUSSAIN Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL
Primary Law Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the 1976 P L C C.S.T. 5(1) bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Chairman, Ashfaq Ali Khan and Khalid Farooq Akbar, Members.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS)) (KHADIM HUSSAIN Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑

Representation

  • Birjees Nagy for Appellant.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑ S. 4‑Appeal before Tribunal‑Scope‑Appellant challenging show cause notice served by competent authority‑Pleas taken in appeal could be agitated in reply to show‑cause noticeInterference, in circumstances, refused by Tribunal.

Judgment & Decree

In this appeal the appellant challenges the show‑cause notice dated 2‑8‑1971, which has been served upon him by the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal. It is to be observed that so far no order adversely affecting the appellant has been made. The pleas which the appellant has taken in this appeal, can be agitated by him before the S. P. also and we have no doubt that these will be considered by the S. P. on merit. In the circumstances we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.