1991 PLP 1695 (CLC)
Mistri BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MAYOR, METROPOLITAN CORPORATION — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1695 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mistri BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MAYOR, METROPOLITAN CORPORATION — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1695 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1695 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1695 (CLC) (Mistri BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MAYOR, METROPOLITAN CORPORATION — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa for Petitioner.
- Fayyaz Hussain Qadri for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Petitioner had contended that he was not granted any hearing before order of sealing shop in his possession was passed by the Authority--Authority stated that it had no objection if order passed by it was set aside and matter remanded for deciding afresh after allowing petitioner an opportunity of being heard
High Court accepting petition declared action of Authority in sealing shop of petitioner as illegal and remanded case to decide afresh after allowing petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
Judgment & Decree
Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa for Petitioner. Fayyaz Hussain Qadri for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th May, 1991. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 assails the order of the respondent whereby the shop in possession of the petitioner was sealed. One of the grounds urged in support of this petition is th4t the petitioner was not granted any hearing before the order of sealing of the shop was passed by the respondent.
2. Today Mr. Fayyaz Hussain Qadri, learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the respondent has no objection if the order impugned in this petition is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for decision afresh after allowing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also no objection. As a result of what has been stated above this petition is accepted, the impugned action of the respondent in sealing the shop is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the case is remanded for decision afresh after allowing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./B‑265/L Order accordingly.