2010 PLP 420 (MLD)
Mst. NADIRA IZHAR — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Provincial Secretary Ministry of Food and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 420 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. NADIRA IZHAR — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Provincial Secretary Ministry of Food and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 420 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 420 (MLD)?
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: 2010 PLP 420 (MLD) (Mst. NADIRA IZHAR — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Provincial Secretary Ministry of Food and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naveed Ahmed Khan for Petitioner.
- Shafi Memon, A.A.-G. for Respondent.
- Petitioner claims to be an employee of KPT. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to the membership of respondent No.2 Society by virtue of her employment being an officer in KPT. It is stated by learned counsel for petitioner that since respondent No.2 inducted non-employees as a member, therefore, her seniority in the membership is affected and she is rendered ineligible to get any plot in the society. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is aggrieved by an order, dated 15-10-2005 passed in Appeal No.26 of 2004 by the Minister for Finance and Cooperation in the matter of Doctors Yasmin Haider and Lubna Rizvi v. Karachi Port Trust Officer Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and another, wherein the Minister has made certain observations as to the amendment in bye-laws of respondent No.2 whereby making provision to induct non-employees of -the KPT as members of the society. Such observation is coming in her way. When the learned counsel was confronted as to whether the petitioner is an employee in the KPT or not, he replied in the affirmative. Therefore, in our opinion, such observation does not come in her way if otherwise she qualifies to be a member of society. As far as eligibility to earn a plot is concerned, the matter is to be decided by the society under its bye-laws. Accordingly, we are not convinced that the petitioner can invoke writ jurisdiction to seek her entitlement either as a member of the society or to earn eligibility to acquire a plot in the society. Such rights, if any, could be agitated before the proper forum and not in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. This petition does not merit consideration which is accordingly dismissed along with pending application, if any.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Scope
Petitioner had claimed that she was entitled to the membership of Cooperative Housing Society by virtue of her employment being an officer in the Society
Petitioner had alleged that since the Society had inducted non-employees as a member, her seniority in the membership was affected and she was rendered ineligible to get any plot in the Housing Society
As far as eligibility to earn a plot was concerned, that matter was to be decided by the Society under its by-laws
Petitioner, could not invoke constitutional jurisdiction to seek her entitlement, either as a member of the Society or to earn eligibility to acquire a plot in the Society
Such rights, if any, could be agitated before the proper forum and not in exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner claims to be an employee of KPT. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to the membership of respondent No.2 Society by virtue of her employment being an officer in KPT. It is stated by learned counsel for petitioner that since respondent No.2 inducted non-employees as a member, therefore, her seniority in the membership is affected and she is rendered ineligible to get any plot in the society. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is aggrieved by an order, dated 15-10-2005 passed in Appeal No.26 of 2004 by the Minister for Finance and Cooperation in the matter of Doctors Yasmin Haider and Lubna Rizvi v. Karachi Port Trust Officer Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and another, wherein the Minister has made certain observations as to the amendment in bye-laws of respondent No.2 whereby making provision to induct non-employees of -the KPT as members of the society. Such observation is coming in her way. When the learned counsel was confronted as to whether the petitioner is an employee in the KPT or not, he replied in the affirmative. Therefore, in our opinion, such observation does not come in her way if otherwise she qualifies to be a member of society. As far as eligibility to earn a plot is concerned, the matter is to be decided by the society under its bye-laws. Accordingly, we are not convinced that the petitioner can invoke writ jurisdiction to seek her entitlement either as a member of the society or to earn eligibility to acquire a plot in the society. Such rights, if any, could be agitated before the proper forum and not in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. This petition does not merit consideration which is accordingly dismissed along with pending application, if any. H.B.T./N-3/K Petition dismissed.