YLR 2008

2008 PLP 217 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition No.5289 of 2007, decided on 10th September, 2007.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Muzammal Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2008 PLP 217 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Muzammal Khan, J
Parties MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 217 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 217 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Muzammal Khan, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 217 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Art.199

Constitutional jurisdiction

Scope

Stance taken in the constitutional petition,' rested on disputed factual controversy, requiring determination through detailed inquiry/recording of evidence, which exercise could not be undertaken while discharging jurisdiction render Art.199 of the Constitution

Despite said constitutional handicap, District Coordination Officer (respondent) was overall incharge of his discipline and a person competent to take the remedial steps

Held, it was, in circumstances, appropriate that matter be brought to his notice

Petitioner could file a fresh application before the Officer who would decide sane expeditiously with a speaking order after hearing petitioner in accordance with law. The Province of East Pakistan v. Kshiti Dhar Roy and others PLD 1964 SC 636 Muhammad Younas Khan and 12 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others 1993 SCMR 618 ref.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.

Petitioner is an owner of "Malik Shah Nawaz Petroleum Service" Khushab and complained that respondent No.4 was granted license in form "J" to store Class "B" Petroleum, not exceeding 2000 litters but he in violation of his license is selling high speed diesel/petrol. It was contended that respondent No.4 cannot act in violation of law and the judgment delivered by this Court on 28-3-2007 in Writ Petition No.8567 of 2006 by selling the petroleum goods which are not included in his license. A direction in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court was prayed to be issued, to the official-respondents to, take necessary action against respondent No.4.

2. Having heard the case and perused the record, it became apparent that stance canvassed in this petition rested on disputed factual controversy, requiring determination through detailed inquiry/recording of evidence but such exercise cannot be undertaken while discharging jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of this country. These canons have already attained finality through consistent judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, right from the case of The Province of East Pakistan v. Kshiti Dhar Roy and others (PLD 1964 SC 636) up-to date, including the case of Muhammad Younas Khan and 12 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others (1993 SCMR 618). In spite of this constitutional handicap, it is obvious that respondent No.2 is overall incharge of his discipline and a person competent to take remedial steps, thus it is appropriate that matter be brought to his notice. The petitioner may, if. so advised, file a fresh application before respondent No.2 who will decide the same with a speaking order, after hearing the petitioner, expeditiously in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 will take remedial steps on the basis of his own inquiry and findings without being influenced by the instant order. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. H.B.T./M-527/L Order accordingly.