SCMR 1969

1969 PLP 191 (SCMR)

AHMAD ALI AND OTHERS‑‑Petitioners Versus LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LAHORE Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 423 and 431 of 1968, decided on 6th December 1968.
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1969 PLP 191 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties AHMAD ALI AND OTHERS‑‑Petitioners Versus LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LAHORE Respondent
Primary Law C. P. S. L. A. No. 431 of 1968, Lahore Municipality Slaughter Houre Bye‑Laws, 1965, C. P. S. L. A. No. 423 of 1968
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 191 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: C. P. S. L. A. No. 431 of 1968, Lahore Municipality Slaughter Houre Bye‑Laws, 1965, C. P. S. L. A. No. 423 of 1968 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 191 (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: 1969 PLP 191 (SCMR) (AHMAD ALI AND OTHERS‑‑Petitioners Versus LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LAHORE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

C. P. S. L. A. No. 431 of 1968 Lahore Municipality Slaughter Houre Bye‑Laws, 1965 C. P. S. L. A. No. 423 of 1968

Representation

  • Muhammad Ayub Attorney for Petitioners.
  • Nemo for Respondent.
  • Muhammad Tufail, Advocate Supreme Court Raza Qazim, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) instructed by Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioners.
  • Nemo for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing : 6th December 1968.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 8th November 1968, in Civil _ Revision No. 735 of 1968). --Bye law No. 28‑Construction‑‑Rlood ensuing slaughter of animals Being a marketable commodity, whether owners of animals not entitled to collect and dispose of same themselves‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question.

Judgment & Decree

Bye law No. 28‑Construction‑‑Rlood ensuing slaughter of animals Being a marketable commodity, whether owners of animals not entitled to collect and dispose of same themselves‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question. Muhammad Ayub Attorney for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Muhammad Tufail, Advocate Supreme Court Raza Qazim, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) instructed by Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 6th December 1968. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI , J.‑this disposes of Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 423 and 431 of 1968. It is contended that the construction placed by the High Court on Bye‑Law No. 28 of the Lahore Municipality Slaughter House Bye‑Laws of 1965 is on its face open to question. The bye‑law provides that blood, unwanted offals, refuse and other offensive matter left at the Slaughter House premises shall be removed under the supervision and control of the Superintendent of the Slaughter House to a place fixed for that purpose by the Municipal Medical Officer of Health. The operative words in the bye‑law are : "left at the slaughter house". The petitioners who under licence slaughter their animals in the Municipal Slaughter House collect blood and dispose it of to M/s. Lever Bros. Limited and other contractors. No blood is thus left to be removed under Bye‑law No.

28. The High Court has, however, formed the view that the bye‑law confers on the respondent the power to supervise the control over the disposal of the blood. Blood is marketable property and it requires considera tion whether the respondent besides charging the licence fee from the petitioners who slaughter their animals in the Municipal Slaughter House can further appropriate the blood to itself. This Court does not ordinarily interfere with orders which do not finally adjudicate upon the rights of the parties, but as the construction placed by the High Court on Bye‑law No. 28 is likely to affect the decision of the civil suit brought by the petitioners for a declaration that they are the owners of the ` blood of the animals slaughtered by them in the Municipal Slaughter House, we grant special leave to appeal. Security Rs. 1,

000. Status quo to be maintained meanwhile. Leave granted.