1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ANISUL REHMAN and 12 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Excise and Taxation, Karachi and 5 others
| Citation | 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Wajihuddin Ahmed and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | ANISUL REHMAN and 12 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Excise and Taxation, Karachi and 5 others |
| Primary Law | (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Wajihuddin Ahmed and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ANISUL REHMAN and 12 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Excise and Taxation, Karachi and 5 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Noruddin Sarki and Raja Qureshi for Petitioners.
- Ameer Hani Muslim, Additional Advocate‑General, Sindh for Respondents.
- These petitions are directed against a common order namely, that comprised in the Notification dated 23‑8‑1995, whereby the petitioners' services were terminated by the Secretary to the Government of Sindh in the Excise and Taxation Department. The respondents, upon pre‑admission notices, have urged that the petitions are barred because such relief, as has been sought, can only be obtained from the Service Tribunal. As to this, the learned counsel for petitioners say that the impugned order being mala fide and void the jurisdiction of this Court can also be invoked. However, in view of the dicta in Shakeel Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan 1995 PLC (C.S.) 1221 and Shakeel Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan 1995 PLC (C.S.) 1226, even though there may be some substance in what the learned counsel for petitioners by way of a legal proposition, say this Court is reluctant to A extend relief in matters where a Tribunal constituted under Constitutional mandate is available as an alternative or even as a primary forum. This aspect as well is distinguished by the learned counsel for petitioners, who say that the Sindh Service Tribunal is currently without a Chairman and, therefore, in effect, non‑functional. The learned Additional Advocate‑General, Sindh on his part maintains that the vacancy is likely to be filled in not too distant a future.
- Another aspect of the case, which has been brought to our notice, from the side of the petitioners, is that the same impugned notification has already been questioned by some of the affectees by taking appeals to the Service Tribunal and those appeals are pending. If that be so, surely, the petitioners can seek to be impleaded in those appeals and may adequately be heard. Besides, they can file appeals of their own, if so advised, which, in course of time, can be heard and disposed of. The learned counsel for petitioners, however, apprehend that in such an event, that is to say, if the petitioners prefer appeals of their own they may be confronted with questions of limitation coating in their way. All that can be said on the subject is that if an order is shown to have been passed in colourable exercise of power or is otherwise a void order the pleas of limitation, if any, have to be judged in that background.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Arts. 199 & 212‑‑‑Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), S. 4‑‑ Termination of service‑‑‑Constitutional petition in terms of Art. 199 of the Constitution‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑Bar of jurisdiction provided in Art. 212‑-- Effect‑‑‑Petitioner basing competency of his petition under Art. 199 on the mala fide acts of the respondent ‑‑‑Validity Held: High Court would be reluctant to extend relief in matters where Tribunal constituted under Constitutional mandate was available as alternative or even as primary forum. Shakeel Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan 1995 PLC (C.S.) 1221 and Shakeel Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan 1995 PLC (C.S.) 1226 rel. ‑‑‑‑S. 3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199‑‑‑Void order‑‑‑Void order or order passed in colourable exercise of power ‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Effect‑‑ Where order in question was shown to have been passed in colourable exercise of power, or same was otherwise void, plea of limitation if any, would be judged in that background.
Judgment & Decree
These petitions are directed against a common order namely, that comprised in the Notification dated 23‑8‑1995, whereby the petitioners' services were terminated by the Secretary to the Government of Sindh in the Excise and Taxation Department. The respondents, upon pre‑admission notices, have urged that the petitions are barred because such relief, as has been sought, can only be obtained from the Service Tribunal. As to this, the learned counsel for petitioners say that the impugned order being mala fide and void the jurisdiction of this Court can also be invoked. However, in view of the dicta in Shakeel Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan 1995 PLC (C.S.) 1221 and Shakeel Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan 1995 PLC (C.S.) 1226, even though there may be some substance in what the learned counsel for petitioners by way of a legal proposition, say this Court is reluctant to A extend relief in matters where a Tribunal constituted under Constitutional mandate is available as an alternative or even as a primary forum. This aspect as well is distinguished by the learned counsel for petitioners, who say that the Sindh Service Tribunal is currently without a Chairman and, therefore, in effect, non‑functional. The learned Additional Advocate‑General, Sindh on his part maintains that the vacancy is likely to be filled in not too distant a future. Another aspect of the case, which has been brought to our notice, from the side of the petitioners, is that the same impugned notification has already been questioned by some of the affectees by taking appeals to the Service Tribunal and those appeals are pending. If that be so, surely, the petitioners can seek to be impleaded in those appeals and may adequately be heard. Besides, they can file appeals of their own, if so advised, which, in course of time, can be heard and disposed of. The learned counsel for petitioners, however, apprehend that in such an event, that is to say, if the petitioners prefer appeals of their own they may be confronted with questions of limitation coating in their way. All that can be said on the subject is that if an order is shown to have been passed in colourable exercise of power or is otherwise a void order the pleas of limitation, if any, have to be judged in that background. In the circumstances, discussed per paragraph proceeding hereto, we dispose of these petitions leaving the petitioners to pursue their remedies in the Sindh Service Tribunal. Correspondingly, the miscellaneous applications pending in these petitions are also disposed of, as having served their respective purposes. A.A./A‑88/K Order accordingly.