2011 PLC (C (PLP)
MOULA BUX LEGHARI Versus ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR-GENERAL (AIGP) ESTABLISHMENT, REGIONAL POLICE OFFICER, HYDERABAD and another
| Citation | 2011 PLC (C (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | MOULA BUX LEGHARI Versus ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR-GENERAL (AIGP) ESTABLISHMENT, REGIONAL POLICE OFFICER, HYDERABAD and another |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLC (C (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLC (C (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLC (C (PLP) (MOULA BUX LEGHARI Versus ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR-GENERAL (AIGP) ESTABLISHMENT, REGIONAL POLICE OFFICER, HYDERABAD and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ansari Abdul Latif, Advocate Supreme Court with Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Abdul Fateh Malik, Additional Advocate-General, Sinndh for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment, dated 23-6-2008 of the Sindh Service Tribunal at Karachi, passed in Appeal No.83 of 2006).
Art. 212(3)
Controversy about the petitioner's date of birth stood resolved by the Service Tribunal
Jurisdiction of Supreme Court wits restricted only to substantial questions of law of public importance and not determination of controversial questions of fact
No merit was found in the petition, which otherwise was barred by time and no reasonable explanation existed justifying condonation of the delay
Petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
The controversy about the petitioner's date of birth stands resolved by the learned Tribunal. The jurisdiction of this Court is restricted only to substantial questions of law of public importance and not determination of controverted questions of fact. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this petition which is even otherwise barred by time and no reasonable explanation exists justifying condonation of the said delay. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. H.B.T./M-101/SC Leave refused.