CLC 2008

2008 PLP 1455 (CLC)

Mrs. SURAIYA MUNIR and another — Petitioners Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
2007-April-12
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2008 PLP 1455 (CLC)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members N/A
Parties Mrs. SURAIYA MUNIR and another — Petitioners Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI and another — 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 2008 PLP 1455 (CLC)?

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

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1455 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1455 (CLC) (Mrs. SURAIYA MUNIR and another — Petitioners Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Counsel for City District Government had stated that the petition had been filed by the petitioners on mere apprehension and no such decision had been taken by the City District Government to demolish the huts of the petitioners and that in case, decision of that nature was taken then in that eventuality, City Government would take action after complying with due process of law and notice to the petitioners---Counsel for petitioners was satisfied with the said statement of the counsel for the City District Government and did not press the petition---Petition was disposed of accordingly.
  • Muhammad Shahid for Petitioners.

Headnotes / Summary

Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Counsel for City District Government had stated that the petition had been filed by the petitioners on mere apprehension and no such decision had been taken by the City District Government to demolish the huts of the petitioners and that in case, decision of that nature was taken then in that eventuality, City Government would take action after complying with due process of law and notice to the petitioners

Counsel for petitioners was satisfied with the said statement of the counsel for the City District Government and did not press the petition

Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Judgment & Decree

Granted.

2. Granted subject to all just exceptions. 3-4. Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, learned counsel for C.D.G.K. and Mr. Abdul Jabbar Lakho learned A.A-G. waived notice of this petition.

5. Mr. Manzoor Ahmed states that the petition has been filed on Mere apprehension and no such decision has been taken by the City District Government to demolish the huts. He submits that in case, if decision of the nature is taken then in that eventuality the City District Government shall take action after complying with due process of law and notice to the petitioner.

6. In view of statement of Mr. Manzoor Ahmed learned counsel for the petitioner is satisfied and does not press this petition. This petition is disposed of accordingly in the above manner along with listed applications. H.B.T./S-49/K Order accordingly.