1989 PLP 4788(1) (MLD)
TAJ DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus ZAFAR IQBAL SHAH, S.H.O. and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4788(1) (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasmi Khan, J |
| Parties | TAJ DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus ZAFAR IQBAL SHAH, S.H.O. and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4788(1) (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4788(1) (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Irshad Hasmi Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4788(1) (MLD) (TAJ DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus ZAFAR IQBAL SHAH, S.H.O. and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑Allegation of petitioner was that Station House Officer of Police Station was .unnecessarily harassing him though he was not involved in any criminal case‑‑Police Official concerned undertook not to take any action against petitioner or harass him any more‑‑Petition disposed of accordingly. Samee Ullah Khan with Z.H.Raja and Muhammad Akram for the Petitioners. Respondent No.1 in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑Allegation of petitioner was that Station House Officer of Police Station was .unnecessarily harassing him though he was not involved in any criminal case‑‑Police Official concerned undertook not to take any action against petitioner or harass him any more‑‑Petition disposed of accordingly. Samee Ullah Khan with Z.H.Raja and Muhammad Akram for the Petitioners. Respondent No.1 in person. The grievance of the petitioner is that Zafar Iqbal Shah, S.H.O. Police I Station, Green Town, Lahore, is unnecessarily harassing him, although he is not' involved in any criminal case. The S.H.O. has given an undertaking that he will not harass the petitioner, in any manner whatsoever, and shall not take any action against him contrary to law.
2. In view of the above, the writ petition has borne fruit and is disposed of accordingly. S.A./T‑73/L Order accordingly.