1975 PLP 189 (SCMR)
MAQBUL COTTON FACTORY-Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, EXCISE
| Citation | 1975 PLP 189 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MAQBUL COTTON FACTORY-Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, EXCISE |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 189 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 189 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 189 (SCMR) (MAQBUL COTTON FACTORY-Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, EXCISE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pir Anwar Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by SA. Asdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both the Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents (in both the Petitions).
- Date of hearing 16t October 1974.
- Pir Anwar Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by SA. Asdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both the Petitions).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 11-3-1974, in Writ Petitions Nos. 257 and 258 of 1974). -- Art. 185-High Court admitting appeals for regular hearing staying recovery of certain dues but refusing recovery of another set of dues-Orders of High Court, held, purely discretionary and not amounting to any adjudication of any question finally-Cases, held, not fit for interference by Supreme Court. .
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR REHMAN.‑These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the orders of learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in two writ petitions filed to challenge the validity of the provisions of rule 12 of the West Pakistan Cotton Control Rules, 1966. The writ petitions are still pending in the High Court. The High Court has admitted there for regular hearing stayed recovery of the dues prior to the date of the notification of 3‑12‑1973 but refused to stay prospective recovery after the said date. The petitioner now seeks to challenge these orders. These are purely discretionary orders of the High Court by which no right has been adjudicated upon nor has any question been decided finally. We do not consider these to be fit cases for interference. If the petitioner has any grievance, he should ask the High Court to expedite the hearing of the writ petitions. With this observation, both the petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.