2010 GBLR 426 (PLP)
HASAN SADPARA — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Defence — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 GBLR 426 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C.J. and Muhammad Yaqoob, J |
| Parties | HASAN SADPARA — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Defence — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 GBLR 426 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 GBLR 426 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C.J. and Muhammad Yaqoob, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 GBLR 426 (PLP) (HASAN SADPARA — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Defence — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Art. 60(13)---Petition for leave to appeal---Writ jurisdiction before Chief Court---Scope---After dismissal of review petition before Chief Court, petitioner could not invoke writ jurisdiction before the same court on the same subject; notwithstanding the fact that full judgment was not written, short order would be treated judgment in the case---Counsel for petitioner realizing the legal position, instead of further agitating the matter before Supreme Appellate Court, had submitted that petitioner would raise all questions of law and facts before the court concerned in due course of time at proper stage; and would not further press the petition before Supreme Appellate Court---Petition was disposed of.
- Johar Ali, Advocate for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 60(13)
Writ jurisdiction before Chief Court
Scope
After dismissal of review petition before Chief Court, petitioner could not invoke writ jurisdiction before the same court on the same subject; notwithstanding the fact that full judgment was not written, short order would be treated judgment in the case
Counsel for petitioner realizing the legal position, instead of further agitating the matter before Supreme Appellate Court, had submitted that petitioner would raise all questions of law and facts before the court concerned in due course of time at proper stage; and would not further press the petition before Supreme Appellate Court
Petition was disposed of.
Judgment & Decree
The learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted that after dismissal of review petition before Chief Court, the petitioner could not invoke the writ jurisdiction before the same Court on the same subject and further notwithstanding the fact that full judgment was not written the short order would be treated judgment in the case, he realizing the legal position instead of further agitating the matter before this court has submitted that petitioner would raise all question of law and facts before the court concerned in due course of time at proper stage and would not further press this petition before this court order accordingly. This petition stands disposed of as having been not pressed. H.B.T./45/Glt Order accordingly.