1989 PLP 1707 (SCMR)
Rana MAHMOOD AHMAD Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1707 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Rana MAHMOOD AHMAD Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1707 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1707 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1707 (SCMR) (Rana MAHMOOD AHMAD Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafarullah Cheema, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 13‑5‑1984 in Appeal No. 388 (L)/83). ‑‑‑S.17(1‑A)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Petitioner's appeal was not considered on merits but was thrown out as being hopelessly barred by time‑ Tribunal after taking into consideration explanation offered by the petitioner and other circumstances declined to exercise discretion in his favour on the ground that "ignorance of law is no excuse"‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Rana Mahmood Ahmad son of Aleemuddin, ex‑Line Superintendent Grade‑1, Jauharabad Sub‑Division seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 13‑5‑198.1. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner which was against his removal from service under section 17(1‑A) of the WAPDA Act. His appeal unfortunately was not considered on merits but was thrown out as being hopelessly barred by time. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition could not give any satisfactory explanation as to why jurisdiction of the Tribunal was invoked so late. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the explanation offered by the petitioner and other circumstanccs declined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner on the ground that "ignorance of law is no excuse". Nothing can be done for the petitioner. Leave is declined. M.A.K./M‑935/S Leave refused.