2006 PLP 1200 (SCMR)
TANVEER SHOUKAT — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, NAROWAL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1200 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqba1 and Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | TANVEER SHOUKAT — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, NAROWAL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1200 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1200 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqba1 and Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1200 (SCMR) (TANVEER SHOUKAT — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, NAROWAL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhtar Ali Qureshi, A.A.-G., Punjab for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th February, 2006.
- Pervaiz Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record with Petitioner in person.
- JAVED IQBAL, J.--- Heard Mr. Pervaiz Inayat Malik, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner and Mr. Akhtar Ali Qureshi, learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab for the respondents, scanned the entire record and perused the judgment impugned as well as the order passed by the learned District Judge, Narowal (Appellate Authority). It appears that the order has not been passed with diligent application of mind as the petitioner appears to be well conversant with Urdu language and has got reasonable skill in writing Urdu which makes him capable to perform his routine duties. The learned District Judge (Appellate Authority) has on the contrary observed that the petitioner is not capable to write even simple sentences in Urdu which observation seems to be without any substance in view of the fact that the petitioner was called in person and asked to write a few sentences in Urdu which was done by the petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 23-6-2003 of Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Appeal No.464 of 2003).
Art. 212(3)
Conversion of petition into appeal
Impugned order had not been passed with diligent application of mind as petitioner appeared to be well conversant with Urdu language and had got reasonable skill in writing Urdu which had made him capable to perform his routine duties
Appellate Authority had, on the contrary observed that petitioner was not capable to write even simple sentences in Urdu, which observation seemed to be without any substance in view of the fact that petitioner was called in person and asked to write a few sentences in Urdu which was done by the petitioner
Petition was converted into appeal and accepted
Impugned judgment as well as order passed by Appellate Authority/District Judge, were set aside
Appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner before Appellate Authority, would be treated as pending which would be decided in accordance with law and merits within specified period. Pervaiz Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record with Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J.
Heard Mr. Pervaiz Inayat Malik, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner and Mr. Akhtar Ali Qureshi, learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab for the respondents, scanned the entire record and perused the judgment impugned as well as the order passed by the learned District Judge, Narowal (Appellate Authority). It appears that the order has not been passed with diligent application of mind as the petitioner appears to be well conversant with Urdu language and has got reasonable skill in writing Urdu which makes him capable to perform his routine duties. The learned District Judge (Appellate Authority) has on the contrary observed that the petitioner is not capable to write even simple sentences in Urdu which observation seems to be without any substance in view of the fact that the petitioner was called in person and asked to write a few sentences in Urdu which was done by the petitioner. In view of the above, this petition is converted into appeal and accepted. The judgment impugned as well as the order passed by learned District Judge, Narowal, are set aside. The appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner before the learned District Judge, Narowal (Appellate Authority) shall be treated as pending which shall be decided in accordance with law and on merits within a period of fifteen days after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned. H.B.T./T-8/SC???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.