2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Qazi M. ASIF JAH BAHADUR Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Education Secretary, Lahore and 3 others
| Citation | 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Syed Zahid Hussain and Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, JJ |
| Parties | Qazi M. ASIF JAH BAHADUR Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Education Secretary, Lahore and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Syed Zahid Hussain and Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Qazi M. ASIF JAH BAHADUR Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Education Secretary, Lahore and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 28th October, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
S.3
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 212
Appellant who was civil servant had assailed the departmental proceedings initiated against him through Constitutional petition which was dismissed by the High Court due to bar of jurisdiction contained in Art.212 of the Constitution
Bar of jurisdiction was attracted in the case in view of non obstante operation of Art.212 of the Constitution and said exclusionary provision was applicable notwithstanding anything therein contained
Contention of appellant that as no final order had been passed, Constitutional petition was competent before High Court, as matter could not be taken to Service Tribunal, was repelled
Constitutional petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court
Order of High Court could not be interfered with in Intra-Court appeal. Al-Ahram Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 1993 SCMR 29; I.A. Sherwani v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad 1991 SCMR 1041; Hafiz Sabir Ali v. Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Sahiwal 2002' PLC (C.S.) 1024; Khalid Mahmud Ch. v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Development 2002 SCMR 805; Muhammad Azhar v. General Manager (Operation) Power, WAPDA PLD 1990 Lah. 352; Muhammad Aslam Bajwa v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1974 Lah. 545; Abdul Wahab v. Government of Punjab PLD 1989 SC 508; Superintendent of Police, Headquarter, Lahore v. Muhammad Latif PLD 1988 SC 387 and Akhtar Ali v. Province of Punjab PLD 1992 Lah. 127 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Al-Ahram Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 1993 SCMR 29; I.A. Sherwani v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad 1991 SCMR 1041; Hafiz Sabir Ali v. Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Sahiwal 2002' PLC (C.S.) 1024; Khalid Mahmud Ch. v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Development 2002 SCMR 805; Muhammad Azhar v. General Manager (Operation) Power, WAPDA PLD 1990 Lah. 352; Muhammad Aslam Bajwa v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1974 Lah. 545; Abdul Wahab v. Government of Punjab PLD 1989 SC 508; Superintendent of Police, Headquarter, Lahore v. Muhammad Latif PLD 1988 SC 387 and Akhtar Ali v. Province of Punjab PLD 1992 Lah. 127 ref. Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Appellant. Date of hearing: 28th October, 2003. The appellant, admittedly a civil servant had assailed the proceedings initiated against him, through a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which stands dismissed vide impugned order dated 23-9-2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court due to bar of jurisdiction contained in Article 212 of the Constitution. In assailing the same, it is contended by the learned counsel that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is not barred in all the matters and that since no final order has been passed in the case the bar of jurisdiction contained in Article.212 is not attracted to the circumstances of this case. It is further contended that the appellant is entitled to be dealt with in accordance with law. Reliance has been placed upon Al-Ahrani Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellant Tribunal (1993 SCMR 29), I.A. Sherwani v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance Division, Islamabad (1991 SCMR. 1041), Hafiz Sabir finance v. Administrator Municipal Corporation, Sahiwal (2002 PLC (C.S.) 1024), Khalid Mahmud Ch. v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary ,Livestock and Dairy Development, 2002 SCMR 805 and Muhammad Azhar v. General Manager (Operation) Power WAPPA (PLD 1990 Lahore 352).
2. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel but are unable to subscribe the same inasmuch as in view of non-obstante operation of Article 212 the bar of jurisdiction gets attracted. In Muhammad Aslam Bajwa v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1974 Lahore 545) it was observed that the exclusionary provisions pf Article 212 of the Constitution were applicable "notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained" which takes within its ambit the preceding provisions of the Constitution.
3. So far as the contention of the learned counsel that no final order 'has since been passed, therefore, petition before. this Court is competent as the matter cannot be taken to the Service Tribunal is concerned, the contention is equally untenable in view of the legal position stated in Abdul Waliab v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1989 SC 508), 'The Superintendent of Police, Headquarter, Lahore v. Muhammad Latif (PLD 1988 SC 387) and Akhtar Ali v. Province of Punjab (PLD 1992 Lahore 127). The precedents cited by the learned counsel are of no help to the appellant. In this view of the matter, we find that jurisdiction or this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution stood' excluded by operation of Article 2,12 of the Constitution. The petition has, therefore, rightly been dismissed` by the learned Single Judge.
4. As a result of the above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./M-2408/L Intra-Court appeal dismissed.