1970 PLP 58 (SCMR)
HASAN DIN CHISHTI-Petitioner Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, WAPDA-Respondent
| Citation | 1970 PLP 58 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HASAN DIN CHISHTI-Petitioner Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, WAPDA-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 58 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 58 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 58 (SCMR) (HASAN DIN CHISHTI-Petitioner Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, WAPDA-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 9th October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 25th January 1967, in Writ Petition No. 2055 of 1965). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-Other remedy open Failure to avail of remedy available-Disentitles person to invoke writ jurisdiction. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑This is a petition for Special Leave to Appeal from an order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan dismissing a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution. The petitioner, who was a Mechanical Foreman in the WAPDA, it appears, was removed from service. He filed a suit to challenge the validity of the order removing him. This suit was dismissed on the 12th November 1962, on the ground that the petitioner held a purely temporary appointment and, his service could be terminated at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason. He preferred no appeal against this order but filed a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution in the High Court on the 15th of November 1965, seeking the same reliefs. The High Court refused to interfere on the ground that a person, who had elected to avail of one of the alternative remedies available to him, could not be entitled to agitate the same questions for a second time after he had failed to obtain the remedy which he had elected to seek. We are of the opinion that the High Court acted upon sound judicial principles in refusing relief by way of a writ in the circumstances of this case. No just exception can taken to the order of the High Court. We see no ground interfere. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.