1988 PLP 1460 (MLD)
SULTAN AHMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER BAHWALNAGER, CANAL CIRCLE
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1460 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J |
| Parties | SULTAN AHMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER BAHWALNAGER, CANAL CIRCLE |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑, (a) Canal and Drainage Act (VII of 1873)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1460 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑, (a) Canal and Drainage Act (VII of 1873)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1460 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1460 (MLD) (SULTAN AHMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER BAHWALNAGER, CANAL CIRCLE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hasan Ahmad Khan Kanwar for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 20‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑Main point advanced by petitioners, i.e., that mandatory provisions of S. 20 of Act were not complied with by relevant authority and that its order and orders passed thereafter were void ab initio, could be urged in a civil suit before a Civil Court. ‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑Early hearing of‑‑Directing early hearing of writ petition without affording opportunity of hearing on point to all petitioners whose petitions were ,pending in High Court, held, would he against interest of justice.
Judgment & Decree
The main argument that the learned counsel wants to advance is that mandatory provisions of section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act, have not been complied with, and thus, the order (Annexure `E') and those passed thereafter are void ab initio. The same point can be urged in a civil suit before a civil Court. The only answer given by the learned counsel to the question as to why that remedy should not be pursued by the petitioner is that the proceedings in the suit would be lengthy. The long and heavy pendency of writ petitions filed m the High Court when compared to disposal of cases in Civil Courts has shown that in the present circumstances remedy by way of civil suit is speedier.
2. On the question of early hearing of a writ petition I am of the view that` directing early hearing of a writ petition without affording opportunity of hearing on this point to all the writ petitioners whose writ petitions are pending in the High Court is against the interest of justice.
3. There is no justification for admitting this petition. I have expressed similar view in Writ Petitions Nos. 1340/73 and 1469/73. For the above reasons, this petition is dismissed.
4. This order shall not be a bar to the petitioners seeking remedy by way of a civil suit. M.Y.H./3992/L Petition dismissed.