2001 PLP 2325 (YLR)
Ch. HAMAYUN ABID — Petitioner Versus BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AITCHISON COLLEGE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2325 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J |
| Parties | Ch. HAMAYUN ABID — Petitioner Versus BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AITCHISON COLLEGE and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2325 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2325 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2325 (YLR) (Ch. HAMAYUN ABID — Petitioner Versus BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AITCHISON COLLEGE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ----Art.199---Jurisdiction of judicial review and appellate jurisdiction---Distinction Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Art.199
Jurisdiction of judicial review and appellate jurisdiction
Distinction Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Petitioner. Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th August, 2001. Petitioner has been a resident student of Aitchison College. It is stated that allegedly, while the petitioner was appearing in the 8th class examination, a chit was recovered from the petitioner. On such recovery the petitioner was debarred from taking further examination. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this Constitutional petition to contend that action taken against the petitioner is violative of the principles of natural justice. It has also been claimed that the chit allegedly recovered from the petitioner did not have relevance to the paper.
2. Respondents have filed written statement in which the position' taken is that the petitioner has not been a very good student and that even previously on one or two occasions he was promoted out of grace. Copies of the relevant educational record of the petitioner has been attached to substantiate the assertion that petitioner was never a good student.
3. During the course of hearing, apart from the above, reliance has been placed on college rules and regulations, particularly Regulation No.2 at page 6, to submit that punishment imposed has the backing of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on other hand, has contended that not only that the petitioner has not been permitted to take the examination further, but he has been expelled from the college. Learned counsel strenuously contends that the punishment of explusion is extremely harsh.
4. If the action has the backing of rules/regulations, the Court should withhold interference on the ground of harshness of the punishment. The jurisdiction of judicial review is distinguishable from appellate jurisdiction. While an Appellate Court can modify or substitute sentence, the Court of judicial review normally will only be concerned about the legality of the order/action.
5. In the circumstances, no case for judicial interference has been made. This petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. It would, however, be open to the petitioner to seek review of the order on the ground of harshness of the punishment. H.B.T./H-53/L Petition dismissed: