1988 PLP 1871 (SCMR)
ANJUMAN TAHAFAZ-E-HAQOOQ-E-SHAHRIAN QUIDABAD — Petitioner Versus Kh. MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1871 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---Arts.185(3) & 199--Leave to appeal, grant of--Locus standi of petitioners--Writ jurisdiction--Failure to avail departmental remedy- Effect of--Two parties challenging judgment passed by High Court in favour of respondents--Petitioner in one case had no locus standi to challenge order passed by a Government functionary, before appellate authority--Order of appellate authority challenged in writ jurisdiction and set aside--Petitioner in other case not having challenged initial order of Government functionary had accepted the same and had no locus standi to file petition for leave to appeal--Both petitions dismissed. locuas standi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | ANJUMAN TAHAFAZ-E-HAQOOQ-E-SHAHRIAN QUIDABAD — Petitioner Versus Kh. MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1871 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1871 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---Arts.185(3) & 199--Leave to appeal, grant of--Locus standi of petitioners--Writ jurisdiction--Failure to avail departmental remedy- Effect of--Two parties challenging judgment passed by High Court in favour of respondents--Petitioner in one case had no locus standi to challenge order passed by a Government functionary, before appellate authority--Order of appellate authority challenged in writ jurisdiction and set aside--Petitioner in other case not having challenged initial order of Government functionary had accepted the same and had no locus standi to file petition for leave to appeal--Both petitions dismissed. locuas standi bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1871 (SCMR) (ANJUMAN TAHAFAZ-E-HAQOOQ-E-SHAHRIAN QUIDABAD — Petitioner Versus Kh. MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.941 of 1981).
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.P. No.941 of 1981).
- S.M.Zubair, Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.941 of 1981).
- Ch.Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.5 (in C.P. No.941 of 1981).
- Date of hearing: 18th July, 1988.
- Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.941 of 1981).
- S.M.Zubair, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.941 of 1981).
- Ch.Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.5 (in C.P. No.941 of 1981).
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 15-7-1981 in W.P. No.2441 of 1981).
Arts.185(3) & 199--Leave to appeal, grant of--Locus standi of petitioners--Writ jurisdiction--Failure to avail departmental remedy- Effect of--Two parties challenging judgment passed by High Court in favour of respondents--Petitioner in one case had no locus standi to challenge order passed by a Government functionary, before appellate authority--Order of appellate authority challenged in writ jurisdiction and set aside--Petitioner in other case not having challenged initial order of Government functionary had accepted the same and had no locus standi to file petition for leave to appeal--Both petitions dismissed. [locuas standi ]
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These two matters arise out of the same case. Two parties have separately challenged the same judgment passed by the High Court irf favour of respondents' side in its constitutional jurisdiction. C.P. 941 was dismissed for non‑prosecution. For reasons stated in the restoration application, we restore the same. After hearing both the learned counsel, we are satisfied that the petitioner in C.P.941 had in the circumstances of this case, no locus standi to challenge the order passed in favour of the respondents' side by the Assistant Director, The Housing and Physical Planning Department, Lahore, before the Deputy Secretary (Development) Lahore, Housing and Physical Planning Department. Latter's order was challenged before the High Court and was set aside by it in writ jurisdiction. We are also satisfied that the petitioners (including the Punjab Government) in C.P.971 not having challenged the order of the Assistant Director, had accepted the same. Therefore, they also, in the circumstances of this case, have no locus standi now to file this petition for leave to appeal. Accordingly on account of the aforestated position, these petitions must fail and are accordingly dismissed. M. I. /A‑306‑S Petition dismissed.