1994 PLP 1790 (SCMR)
HUMAIR HAYAT KHAN ROKHRI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1790 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | HUMAIR HAYAT KHAN ROKHRI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1790 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1790 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1790 (SCMR) (HUMAIR HAYAT KHAN ROKHRI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Maqbul Illahi Malik, Bar‑at‑Law, Advocate Supreme Court Instructed by Kh. Muhstaq Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record (Absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Constitutional petitions relating to same cause and claiming the same relief (as claimed in petition seeking leave to appeal) were pending in the High Court‑‑‑Same Constitutional and legal points had been raised in petition, for leave to appeal, therefore, advantage of decision of High Court on those points would be beneficial‑‑‑Supreme Court while disposing of petition for leave to appeal expected and hoped that High Court would decide the matter without further delay.
Judgment & Decree
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that after the issuance of impugned Notification dated 15‑8‑1993, a number of writ petitions were filed in the Lahore High Court, challenging the above Notification. The learned Judge in Chamber heard the case on 11 dates, but ultimately passed the following order:‑ "The notes are not available, so the case would have to be re‑heard afresh. Adjourned to 5‑12‑1993." The writ petitions relating to the same cause and claiming the same relief, as claimed in this petition, are pending in the Lahore High Court. Some constitutional and legal points have been raised in the petition, therefore, we may have the advantage of the decision of the High Court. The anxiety of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that delay in the disposal of the petitions will frustrate the very object of the petition.
2. We expect and hope that the learned High Court will decide the matter without further delay. In view of the above observation, the learned Counsel for the petitioners does not press this petition at present. Resultantly, this petition stands disposed of. A,A./H‑181/S Order accordingly.