1983 PLP 116 (SCMR)
EDUCATION, LAHORE AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus Sh. FAWAD LATIF-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 116 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | EDUCATION, LAHORE AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus Sh. FAWAD LATIF-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 116 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 116 (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: 1983 PLP 116 (SCMR) (EDUCATION, LAHORE AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus Sh. FAWAD LATIF-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Ijaz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners.
- Sh. Ataullah Sajjad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- Sh. Ijaz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 30-I-1982, passed in Writ Petition No. 5465/81). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Granted to consider, inter alia, whether in circumstances of case High Court could have declared order of Discipline Committee to be without lawful authority on assumption that Domestic Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in deciding matter relating to discipline in institution and whether writ petition filed by candidate not barred by laches.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑This petition is directed against the judg ment of the Lahore High Court, dated 30‑1‑1982, accepting respondent's writ petition.
2. The facts forming the background of the case are, briefly, Sh. Fawad Latif (respondent herein) was charged of copying during the Inter mediate Examination held under the suspices of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, 'Lahore, in Autman of 1980. The Discipline Committee of the Board, passed an order of his disqualification from appearing at three examinations arid the Jury of Appeal rejected his appeal. He then challenged this order through a writ petition which was accepted by the High Court vide the impugned order mainly on the ground that the written statement had not been filed on behalf of the Board in reply to the allegations made in the writ petition. The reason given by the Board for not filing the written statement in the High Court was that about 40 files relating to disciplinary actions against the students had been stolen, but it is submitted that sufficient material was available on the record to show that show‑cause notice had, in fact, been served and due inquiry held.
3. Leave is granted to consider, inter alia, whether in the circum‑' stances of this case, the High Court could have declared the order of the) Discipline Committee without lawful authority on the assumption that the,, Domestic Tribunal had not acted judicially in deciding the matter relating' to the discipline in the institution, and secondly whether the writ petition) was not barred by )aches. Impugned order shall remain suspended till final decision of the appeal. Leave granted.