1989 SCMR 1688 (PLP)
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Appellant Versus THE GENERAL PUBLIC Respondent
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 1688 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Appellate Bench |
| Bench Members | Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Chairman, Shafrur Rahman, Pir |
| Parties | FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Appellant Versus THE GENERAL PUBLIC Respondent |
| Primary Law | Islamic University Ordinance (LIII of 1980)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 1688 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Islamic University Ordinance (LIII of 1980)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 SCMR 1688 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Appellate Bench bench comprising: Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Chairman, Shafrur Rahman, Pir.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 SCMR 1688 (PLP) (FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Appellant Versus THE GENERAL PUBLIC Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Riaz Hassan Gilani, Deputy Attorney‑General for Pakistan instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th.lanuary, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Federal Shariat Court dated 21‑6‑1984 in S.S.M. No. 391 of 1984). ‑‑S.8 (6)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203‑F‑‑Rcpugnancy to Injunctions of Islam‑‑Disclosure by a show‑cause notice, of grounds, on which action under S.8(6) of the Ordinance was proposed to be taken and of an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned against whom an action was required to be taken, held, was necessary and its absence or omission from a statute was repugnant to tile Injunctions of Islam. Pakistan v. Public at Large P L D 1987 S C 304 rel.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The Federation of Pakistan has appealed under Art icic 203‑F of the Constitution against a judgment of the Federal Shartiat Court dated the 27th of March, 1984 delivered while examining suo motu the various Federal Acts and Ordinances under Article 203‑D of the Constitution.
2. The specific law in respect of which the finding of the Federal Shariat Court has aggrieved the appellant is the Islamic University Ordinance, 1980 (Ord.No. LIII of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). Its subsection (6) provides as follows. "(6) The Chancellor may remove any person from the membership of any Authority, if such person‑ (i) has become of unsound mind; or (ii) has become subject to an incapacity which prevents him from functioning as a member of such Authority; or (iii) has been convicted by a Court of law of an offence involving moral turpitude; or (iv) leaves Pakistan for more than one year." The Federal Shariat Court while scrutinising this provision observed as hereunder Subsection (6) of section 8 provides for removal of a person from the membership of any Authority on the grounds given therein but it does not provide for show‑cause notice, before action is taken. Such a provision shall be added in subsection (6) of section 8."
3. The learned counsel for the Federation has contended that the contents of subsection (6) of section 8 of the Ordinance are wholly Islamic and that no Injunction of Islam has been cited to which it can be said to be repugnant. The contention is that there is absolutely no warrant in law requiring show‑cause notice before taking action of the type stated in subsection (6) of section 8 of the Act, and that no declaration could be given in' the impugned judgment and the amendment suggested.
4. The requirement of a show‑cause notice, of the disclosure of the grounds on which action is proposed to be taken and of an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned against whom an action is required to be taken was considered at great length in our judgment in Pakistan v. Public at Large (P L D 1987 S C A 304). For the same reasons we consider that the disclosure of such a ground is necessary and its absence or omission from a statute is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam.
5. We find that the decision given by the Fereral Shariat Court impugned before us is well‑founded and consistent with the decision of the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court with regard to all service or employment with the Government or on public posts. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. M.A.K./F‑121/S Appeal dismissed.