2008 PLP 1443 (CLC)
MASOOD AHMED — Petitioner Versus JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF MINORITIES (MINORITIES AFFAIRS DIVISION) and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1443 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MASOOD AHMED — Petitioner Versus JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF MINORITIES (MINORITIES AFFAIRS DIVISION) and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1443 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1443 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1443 (CLC) (MASOOD AHMED — Petitioner Versus JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF MINORITIES (MINORITIES AFFAIRS DIVISION) and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Tariq Rajwana for Petitioner.
- Malik Muhammad Jaffar Kamboh for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
- Amin-ud-Din Khan for Respondent No.4.
- 2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's counsel Ch. Muhammad Hafeez, Advocate died on 11-2-2006, therefore, he personally appeared before respondent No.1 on the date of hearing i.e. 15-4-2006 and made a request for adjournment to engage his counsel, but his request was not acceded to and the revision was decided without hearing his arguments. According to learned counsel, the petitioner did not engage any other counsel, therefore, attendance of counsel on his behalf has been wrongly shown in the impugned order and that he has been condemned unheard.
- 3. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the writ petition and have contended that the petitioner himself was not in attendance at the time of hearing and some junior Advocate appeared on his behalf and addressed the arguments. The revision petition was decided on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.
- 4. As regards the above controversy, the petitioner has placed on record copy of death certificate issued by Secretary, Union Council No.14, Multan, perusal of which shows that Ch. Muhammad Hafeez, resident of Shah Rukn-e-Alam Colony, Multan, died on 11-2-2006 and his death was got entered in the Union Council by his son Muhammad Amjad Hafeez on 14-2-2006. In view of this certificate, the petitioner was certainly not represented by Ch. Muhammad Hafeez, Advocate, who originally filed the revision petition. In the impugned order, attendance of counsel for the petitioner is marked, but neither name of that counsel is mentioned nor his power of attorney is available on the file. In such state of affairs, it cannot be held that the petitioner was duly represented through a counsel before respondent No.1 at the time of hearing of the revision petition. It is indefeasible right of a party that he should be given fair opportunity of hearing which may not be normally possible in the absence of his counsel. Since at the time of hearing of the revision petition, proper legal assistance was not available to him, therefore, the petitioner is deemed to have been condemned unheard. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and revision is remanded back to respondent No.1 for its decision afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. Record be sent back forthwith for further proceedings.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Petitioner had assailed order passed by Authority whereby his revision petition against dismissal of his appeal was dismissed
Petitioner had contended that his counsel had died and lie personally appeared before Authority on the date of hearing and made request for adjournment to engage his counsel, but his request was not acceded to and the revision was decided without hearing arguments of the petitioner
Petitioner had placed on record copy of death certificate issued by Secretary, Union Council concerned; in view of said certificate, the petitioner was certainly not represented by his counsel
Impugned order showed that attendance of counsel for the petitioner was marked, but neither name of counsel was mentioned nor his power of attorney was available on the file; it could not be held, in circumstances that petitioner was duly represented by a counsel before the Authority at the time of hearing of his revision petition; it was indefeasible right of a party that he should be given fair opportunity of hearing, which could not be normally possible in the absence of his counsel
Proper legal assistance being not available to petitioner at the time of hearing of the revision petition, he was deemed to have' been condemned unheard
Allowing constitutional petition, impugned order was set aside and revision was remanded to the Authority for its decision afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Judgment & Decree
MAZHAR HUSSAIN MINHAS, J.
The petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to assail the order, dated 15-4-2006 passed by respondent No.1, whereby his revision petition against the dismissal of his appeal by respondent No.2 vide order, dated 23-7-2005, has been dismissed.
2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's counsel Ch. Muhammad Hafeez, Advocate died on 11-2-2006, therefore, he personally appeared before respondent No.1 on the date of hearing i.e. 15-4-2006 and made a request for adjournment to engage his counsel, but his request was not acceded to and the revision was decided without hearing his arguments. According to learned counsel, the petitioner did not engage any other counsel, therefore, attendance of counsel on his behalf has been wrongly shown in the impugned order and that he has been condemned unheard.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the writ petition and have contended that the petitioner himself was not in attendance at the time of hearing and some junior Advocate appeared on his behalf and addressed the arguments. The revision petition was decided on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.
4. As regards the above controversy, the petitioner has placed on record copy of death certificate issued by Secretary, Union Council No.14, Multan, perusal of which shows that Ch. Muhammad Hafeez, resident of Shah Rukn-e-Alam Colony, Multan, died on 11-2-2006 and his death was got entered in the Union Council by his son Muhammad Amjad Hafeez on 14-2-2006. In view of this certificate, the petitioner was certainly not represented by Ch. Muhammad Hafeez, Advocate, who originally filed the revision petition. In the impugned order, attendance of counsel for the petitioner is marked, but neither name of that counsel is mentioned nor his power of attorney is available on the file. In such state of affairs, it cannot be held that the petitioner was duly represented through a counsel before respondent No.1 at the time of hearing of the revision petition. It is indefeasible right of a party that he should be given fair opportunity of hearing which may not be normally possible in the absence of his counsel. Since at the time of hearing of the revision petition, proper legal assistance was not available to him, therefore, the petitioner is deemed to have been condemned unheard. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and revision is remanded back to respondent No.1 for its decision afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. Record be sent back forthwith for further proceedings. H.B.T./M-208/L Case remanded.