1990SCMR1519 (PLP)
SHER BAHADUR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P. through the Secretary
| Citation | 1990SCMR1519 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S.Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | SHER BAHADUR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P. through the Secretary |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1519 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR1519 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S.Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR1519 (PLP) (SHER BAHADUR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P. through the Secretary). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Ajmal, Assistant Advocate‑General N.‑W.F.P. and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 12‑5‑1987 of N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunal Peshawar in Appeal No.96 of 1986). ‑‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Petitioner had not been able to show that Service Tribunal was in error in holding appeal to be barred by one day or in observing that no application for condonation of delay was filed by petitioner on basis of which delay might be condoned‑‑‑No ground for interference having been made out, petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑‑The N.‑W.F.P: Service Tribunal Peshawar dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the appeal filed before it was barred by one day and that no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of this delay had been filed by him. The petitioner, in this petition for leave to appeal, has challenged the aforesaid order of the Service Tribunal. We have heard the petitioner who has appeared before us in person. Unfortunately he has not been able to show that the Tribunal was in error in holding the appeal to be barred by one day or in observing that no application for condonation of delay was filed on the basis of which the delay might be condoned. No ground for interference, therefore, is made out. Dismissed. H.B.T./S‑423/S Leave refused