1989 PLP 928 (MLD)
HAMDARD LABORATORIES (WAQF) PAKISTAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 928 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, CJ. and Abdul Rahim Kazi, J |
| Parties | HAMDARD LABORATORIES (WAQF) PAKISTAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 928 (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 928 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, CJ. and Abdul Rahim Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 928 (MLD) (HAMDARD LABORATORIES (WAQF) PAKISTAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Monawwar Ghani for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Question involved in petition was whether drugs in dispute were falling within category of Unani medicine or in category of perfumery and cosmetics as claimed by Authorities‑‑No reliable publication which could be cited on that disputed question available‑‑Petition involved disputed question of fact which could not be gone into in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN. CJ.--‑The question in the petition involved is as to whether the petitioners' two drugs, namely, "Romani and Zamand‑e‑Shabab" fall within the category of Unani Medicine or they fall under the category of perfumery and cosmatics, as claimed by the respondent department. It is an A admitted position that there is no reliable publication which can be cited on the above disputed question. In our view the petition involved disputed question of fact and, therefore, cannot be gone into in this petition. The petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./H‑113/K Writ petition dismissed.