1969 PLP 143 (SCMR)
MAHBOOB‑UR‑RAHMAN‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN Respondent
| Citation | 1969 PLP 143 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MAHBOOB‑UR‑RAHMAN‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1962) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 143 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1962) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 143 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 143 (SCMR) (MAHBOOB‑UR‑RAHMAN‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gul Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmed, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 5th November 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 17th March 1968, in Writ Petition ~\o. 1475 of 1966). --Art. 98‑Writ petition dismissed for default‑Second petition competent subject to question of laches.
Judgment & Decree
Art. 98‑Writ petition dismissed for default‑Second petition competent subject to question of laches. Gul Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmed, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 5th November 1968. FAZLE‑AKBAR, C. J.‑The petitioner was an Overseer in the Public Health Sub‑Division at Sargodha. After due show‑cause notice he was dismissed from service in 1959, and his representa tion against the said order was also rejected by the Authorities concerned. He then filed a second representation in October 1959, and in 1962 he was informed that nothing could be done to help him. Thereupon, he moved a writ in 1962 in the High Court against the order dismissing him from service. As the petitioner or his counsel failed to appear the said petition was dismissed for default on 16th November 1965, and the petition for restoration of the writ petition was also dismissed on 27th June 1966. On 6th August 1966, he filed a second writ petition against the order of dismissal which had been passed in 1959. It is true that when a writ petition is dismissed for default, second writ petition is competent, but then there is every likelihood of his second writ petition being dismissed on ground of laches. In this case the order of dismissal was passed nearly eight years ago and, as such, the High Court rightly dismissed the petition on ground of laches. We, therefore, see no ground to interfere with the discretion of the High Court in this case. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.