1998 PLP 220 (SCMR)
JAVED HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 220 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza, Irshad Hassan Khan and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ |
| Parties | JAVED HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 220 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 220 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza, Irshad Hassan Khan and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 220 (SCMR) (JAVED HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Hamid‑ud‑Din, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmudul Islam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nazir Ghazi, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.5/Caveator.
- Date of hearing: 31st March, 1997.
- Ch. Hamid-ud-Din, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmudul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nazir Ghazi, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.5/Caveator.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 3‑3‑1997 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. No.4753 of 1997). ‑‑‑‑Arts. 212 & 185‑‑‑Civil service‑‑‑Interim stay order passed by High Court‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Main grievance of petitioner was that dispute raised by respondent in High Court through Constitutional petition could only be agitated in appeal before Service Tribunal which had exclusive jurisdiction in such matter and that jurisdiction of High Court was barred in terms of Art. 212 of the Constitution‑‑ High Court admittedly had passed order in question, without attending to question of jurisdiction despite the fact that petitioner had specifically raised objection to jurisdiction of High Court through miscellaneous application which was still pending adjudication‑‑‑High Court before granting interim stay order having not adverted to question of jurisdiction with reference to provision of Art. 212 of the Constitution, petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and was allowed with direction to High Court to pass fresh order on stay application after attending to and deciding question of its jurisdiction with reference to provision of Art. 212 of the Constitution.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.
Petitioner is aggrieved of an interim stay order dated 3-3-1997 passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court in a Constitutional Petition (W.P. No.4753 of 1997) filed by Syed Hamid Gul Shah, respondent No.5 herein and he seeks leave to appeal against the said order. By an order dated 11-3-1997 passed by me in Chamber, it was directed that the stay matter (C.M.A. No.134-L of 1997) together: with the petition for leave to appeal be fixed in the next week and meanwhile the petitioner, if so advised, may make an application in the High Court seeking the recall of the impugned interim stay order.
2. It is stated at the Bar that the petitioner has since moved an application -M. No.3 of 1997) in the High Court for vacation of the interim order contending therein that since the matter agitated by the respondent through Constitutional Petition related to the terms and conditions of his service, jurisdiction of the High Court was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution. Notice of this application, it appears, was issued to the respondent/writ-petitioner on 14-3-1997 but no final order, it is submitted, has been passed so far.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/caveator. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the dispute raised by the respondent in the High Court through Constitutional Petition could only be agitated in an appeal before the Service Tribunal which has exclusive jurisdiction in such matters and the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution. The learned Judge in the High Court, however, passed the impugned stay order without attending to the question of jurisdiction. As noted above, petitioner has specifically raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the High Court through a Misc. Application (C.M. No.3 of 1997) which application is stated to be still pending. It is not being denied that the learned Judge in the High Court before passing the impugned stay order did not advert to the question of jurisdiction with reference to the provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, we convert this petition into an appeal and allow the same with the direction that the High Court may pass a fresh order on the stay application of the writ-petitioner after attending to and deciding the question of its jurisdiction with reference to the Provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution. A.A./J-156/S Appeal accepted.