2001 PLP 1856 (SCMR)
ZILLA COUNCIL through Administrator and another‑‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. NASIRA NAHEED and 2 others‑‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1856 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdur Rahman Khan and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ZILLA COUNCIL through Administrator and another‑‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. NASIRA NAHEED and 2 others‑‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1856 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1856 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdur Rahman Khan and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1856 (SCMR) (ZILLA COUNCIL through Administrator and another‑‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. NASIRA NAHEED and 2 others‑‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th October, 2000.
- S.M. Tayyab, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 26‑3‑1998 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, passed in Writ Petition No.8298 of 1997). ‑‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑‑Civil service‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to consider in detail the contentions that alternative remedy of appeal etc., was available to the employee before the Departmental Authority and before availing those remedies the writ petition was not maintainable; that the writ petition suffered from laches as the dismissal order of the employee was passed on 30‑1‑1996, whereas the writ petition was filed on 21‑10‑1997 i.e. after more than one year and nine months and, therefore, on this count alone the High Court was not competent to entertain the writ petition; that the High Court had misread the record in respect of service of notice and participation in inquiry by the employee as it was observed that she had not been afforded an opportunity to associate in the inquiry. S.M. Tayyab, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan
Judgment & Decree
S.M. Tayyab, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th October, 2000. The contentions of the learned counsel are:‑‑ (i) That alternative remedy of appeal etc., was available to the respondent before the Departmental Authority and before .availing those remedies the writ petition was not maintainable; (ii) The writ petition suffered from laches as the dismissal order of the respondent was passed on 30‑1‑1996, whereas the writ petition was filed on 21‑10‑1997 i.e. after more than one year and nine months and, therefore, on this count alone the High Court was not competent to entertain the writ petition; (iii) That the learned Judge in the High Court has misread the record in respect of service of notice and participation in inquiry by the respondent as it was observed that she had not been afforded an opportunity to associate in the inquiry. We grant leave to consider in detail the above contention. H.B.T./Z‑03/S Leave granted.