1991 PLP 1529 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAMEED — Petitioner Versus CHIEF MINISTER. PUNJAB and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1529 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMEED — Petitioner Versus CHIEF MINISTER. PUNJAB and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1529 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1529 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1529 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAMEED — Petitioner Versus CHIEF MINISTER. PUNJAB and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st October, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 5-7-1989 in Writ Petition No. 584/89/MUL).
Arts. 185(3) & 199
High Court admitted Constitutional petition filed by petitioner for regular hearing, but refused interim relief prayed for by him
High Court while admitting petition for regular hearing was not bound to grant interim relief
Leave to appeal was refused. Petitioner in Person.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J: ‑‑This petition for leave to appeal brings under challenge the refusal by the High Court to grant interim relief to the petitioner during the pendency of his writ petition. After hearing the petitioner, who has appeared in person, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal either on merits or on the ground that the Writ Petition having been admitted for regular hearing, the High Court was bound to grant him interim relief. There is no such command in law. The High Court was fully justified not to stifle the administrative machinery of the Government in service matter by issuing the claimed interim relief. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. H.B.T./A‑663/S Leave refused.