2011 PLP 1654 (YLR)
MAMTAZ MEMON — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary Works and Service Department
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1654 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed and Salman Hamid, JJ |
| Parties | MAMTAZ MEMON — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary Works and Service Department |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1654 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 1654 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed and Salman Hamid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 1654 (YLR) (MAMTAZ MEMON — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary Works and Service Department). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ejaz Ahmed Awan for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Aslam Sipyo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 249-A
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition
Petitioner had two fold grievances, firstly that he was blacklisted without providing opportunity of hearing; and secondly he was not paid balance amount towards settlement of his bill
Counsel for the authorities had stated that in view of order passed by the Special Judge, Anti-corruption, by which petitioner's application under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. was allowed and he was acquitted, authorities had no objection for recalling of the order with regard to order whereby the petitioner was blacklisted
Authorities, however, disputed the remaining relief of payment of dues
Petitioner, held, could approach the civil court in accordance with law
Petitioner's counsel had agreed that the petition in the said terms be disposed of
By consent, the order by which petitioner was blacklisted, was set aside; while in respect of payment of his bills, petitioner could approach the court, which would decide the matter in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner has two fold grievances that he was blacklisted vide order dated 1-7-2000 without providing opportunity of hearing and is not paid balance amount of Rs.20 00,000 towards settlement of his bill for the contract of the construction of Dadu By-pass road. The learned counsel for the respondents states that in view of the order dated 26-7-2008 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Hyderabad in Special Case No.85/2001, by which the petitioner's application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. was allowed and he was acquitted, he has no objection for recalling of the order dated 1-7-2000 by which the petitioner was blacklisted and with regard to the remaining relief of payment of dues, it is disputed by respondents and also time barred and the petitioner may approach the Civil Court in accordance with law. Petitioner's counsel agrees that the petition in the above terms be disposed of. Consequently by consent the order dated 1-7-2000 by which the petitioner was black-listed is set aside and in respect of payment of his bills the petitioner may approach the Civil Court who will decide the matter in accordance with law. The petition in the above terms stand disposed of. H.B.T./M-176/K Order accordingly.