1999SCMR1122 (PLP)
Punjab, Lahore and others — Petitioners Versus Miss KIRAN AKHTAR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1999SCMR1122 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | Punjab, Lahore and others — Petitioners Versus Miss KIRAN AKHTAR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Educational institution |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999SCMR1122 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Educational institution as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999SCMR1122 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999SCMR1122 (PLP) (Punjab, Lahore and others — Petitioners Versus Miss KIRAN AKHTAR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th July, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 20-2-1997 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.2859 of 1997).
Interim order whereby High Court had directed Authority to admit candidate to medical college on provisional basis till final decision of Constitutional petition
Supreme Court would not interfere with interim order of High Court
High Court, was, however, directed to dispose of Constitutional petition pending before it since long, before vacation.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the interim order, dated 20-2-1997 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Miscellaneous No.2 of 1997 in Writ Petition No.2859 of 1997, whereby the respondent No. l has been directed to be admitted to Medical College, Rawalpindi on provisional basis till the final decision of the writ petition, which is still at motion stage.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court does not, ordinarily, interfere with an interim order of the High Court. Be that as it p may, since the writ petition is in motion since May, 1997, we, therefore, direct the High Court to dispose of the same before vacation. Of course, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all points for redress of his grievances as are sought to be agitated in these proceedings.
4. With the above observation, this petition stands disposed of. Copy dasti. H.B.T./P-36/S Order accordingly.