1989 PLP 2471 (CLC)
ALI MUHAMMAD AZIZ‑‑Petitioner Versus BEGUM NUSRAT BHUTTO, SENIOR FEDERAL MINISTER
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2471 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, CJ. and Salahuddin Mirza, J |
| Parties | ALI MUHAMMAD AZIZ‑‑Petitioner Versus BEGUM NUSRAT BHUTTO, SENIOR FEDERAL MINISTER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2471 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 2471 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, CJ. and Salahuddin Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2471 (CLC) (ALI MUHAMMAD AZIZ‑‑Petitioner Versus BEGUM NUSRAT BHUTTO, SENIOR FEDERAL MINISTER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Date of hearing: 18th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 142‑‑Contention that previously there was provisions in the Constitution providing a Senior Minister but the same provision had been omitted, and therefore, it was to be inferred that the Constitution did not contemplate appointment of a Senior Minister, had no force‑‑Held, since there was no provision in the Constitution that senior most Minister in the cabinet could not be called as the Senior Minister, no exception could be taken on the ground urged by petitioner. [p. 2472) A (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑ Art.142‑‑Contention that since port‑folios assigned to State Ministers were not covered by subjects mentioned in the Federal Legislature list and the concurrent list, therefore, appointments were illegal and amounted to infringement of Provincial autonomy was misconceived‑‑Ministers of State for portfolios mentioned against them did not constitute legislation on the subject exclusively meant for Provincial Legislature‑‑To act as a Minister for a particular subject is different from the act to legislate on that subject‑‑Port‑folios which had been allocated to State Ministers were covered by the Federal legislative list and/or by the concurrent legislative list or by residuary items mentioned in both the lists. Petitioner in person
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, CJ.‑‑The petitioner by this petition has prayed for the following reliefs:‑ "
22. This Honourable Court may be pleased with exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to: (i) declare that appointments of Respondents Nos. 3 to 14 made by Respondents Nos.l and 2 are without lawful authority (ii) direct the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to remove the Respondents Nos.3 to 14 from offices claimed by them. (iii) Respondents Nos.3 to 14 may be asked to show as to under what authority of law they are holding public offices claimed by them."
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner, who claims to be the President of Pakistan Peoples League, has impugned the appointment of Respondent No.3 as the Senior Federal Minister and of Respondents Nos.4 to 14 as the State Ministers for the port‑folios mentioned against their respective names on the ground that there is no provision in the Constitution for appointment of a Senior Minister and that Respondents Nos.4 to 14 have been appointed as the State Ministers in respect of the port folios which ‑are on the Provincial Legislative List. He has prayed for the above reliefs.
3. In support of the above petition the petitioner has contended that previously there was provision in the Constitution providing a Senior Minister; but the same provision has been omitted, and therefore, it is to be inferred that the Constitution does not contemplate appointment of a Senior Minister. The above contention is devoid of any force. Since there is no prohibition in the Constitution to the effect that the senior‑most Minister in the Cabinet cannot be called as the Senior Minister, no exception can be taken on the ground urged by the petitioner.
4. As regards his submission that. Respondents Nos.4 to 14 have been appointed State Ministers and have been given port‑folios on the subjects which fall within the competency of the Provincial Legislature, it may be observed that he has referred to clause (c) of Article 142 of the Constitution which provides that "a Provincial Assembly shall, and Majlis‑e‑Shoora (Parliament) shall not, 1 have power to make laws with respect to any matter not enumerated in either the Federal Legislative List or the Concurrent Legislative List." On the basis of the above clause in Article 142, he has submitted that since the port‑folios assigned to respondents Nos.4 to 14 are not covered by the subjects mentioned in the Federal Legislative List and the Concurrent Legislative List, their appointments are illegal and amount to infringement of Provincial autonomy. The above contention is misconceived inasmuch as the appointments of the above Respondents Nos.4 to 14 as the Ministers of State for the port‑folios mentioned against them do not constitute Legislation on the subject exclusively meant for the Provincial Legislature. In our view to act as a Minister for a particular subject is different from the act to legislate on that subject. Even otherwise the port‑folios which have been allocated to Respondents Nos.4 to 14 are covered by the Federal Legislative List and or by the Concurrent Legislative List or by residuary items mentioned in both the lists. The petition has, therefore, no merits. It is, therefore, dismissed in limine. These are the reasons in pursuance of short order of even date. MA.K./A‑670/K Petition dismissed.