1968 SCMR 572 (PLP)
M. A. K. TARIN-Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, WEST PAKISTAN AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 572 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. A. Rahman, C.J. and Hamoodur Rahman, J |
| Parties | M. A. K. TARIN-Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, WEST PAKISTAN AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 572 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 572 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. A. Rahman, C.J. and Hamoodur Rahman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 572 (PLP) (M. A. K. TARIN-Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, WEST PAKISTAN AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. Nasim Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. B. Khizar Tatnitni, Senior Attorney for Petitioner,
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 4th July 1967, in Writ Petition No. 95 of 1967/Writ Petition No. 1799 of 1967). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Arts. 98 & 58(3)-Writ petition Decision by High Court substantially in favour of petitioner-Mere fact that certain legal issues were not adjudicated upon - Would furnish no ground to such petitioner for Special Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal, on behalf of Mr. M. A. K. Tarin, from an order passed by the High Court of West Pakistan on a petition for a writ Dicd by Min, By that petition he had called in question the validity of the termination of his service under the Thal Development Authority. The learned Judges of the High Court, who heard the petition, declared that the orders of suspension and termination of service of the petitioner were without lawful authority but left the parties to bear their own costs. The grievance of the petitioner, as stated by Mr. Nasim Hassan on his behalf, is that the learned Judges of the High Court did not consider certain legal points raised on his behalf. Apart from the fact that the petition is barred by 9 days and no satisfactory explanation for the delay has been given, it appears to us that the present petition is misconceived. The decision by the High Court was substantially in favour of the petitioner. This Court does not undertake the examination of academic issues. If relief was granted to the petitioner, as he desired, for certain reasons, then merely because certain legal' issues were not adjudicated upon would furnish no ground for special leave to appeal. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.