2001 PLP 1873 (MLD)
USMAN SAIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE through Vice‑Chancellor and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1873 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J |
| Parties | USMAN SAIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE through Vice‑Chancellor and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Educational institution‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1873 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Educational institution‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1873 (MLD)?
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 1873 (MLD) (USMAN SAIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE through Vice‑Chancellor and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.
- Syed Mohsin Abbas Naqvi for Respondents.
- Dates of hearing: 29th June and 3rd July, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Admission in B.Sc. Engineering‑‑‑Dues for admission‑‑‑Failure to deposit the dues in due course of time‑‑‑Candidate applied for the admission and on account of his being out of city did not know about the last date for deposit of the dues ‑‑‑University denied admission to the candidate‑‑ Contention of the Authorities was that even if the candidate be allowed to join the course, he could not complete the required number of attendance of lectures‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑High Court advised the candidate that he might apply for admission in fresh course and the Authorities were directed to consider the case of the candidate in accordance with law and if possible sympathetically.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner. Syed Mohsin Abbas Naqvi for Respondents. Dates of hearing: 29th June and 3rd July, 2001. For the Academic Sessions 2000‑2001 to the course of B.Sc. Engineering first. professional class the petitioner's name appeared on the first merit list and as per notice petitioner was required to deposit the University dues on or before 14‑12‑2000. It is the case of the petitioner that he was out of Lahore and could not know the last date of deposit. It is claimed that petitioner came to Lahore a few days after the last date and offered to deposit the amount. The petitioner's name did not appear in the second or third merit list and as there was no response to the offer of deposit, the petitioner filed this petition for directing the respondents‑department to grant admission to the petitioner after permission to deposit the dues. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of deposit of dues by the fixed date is directory and failure to deposit would not amount to the forfeiture of the admission.
2. In its report and parawise comments the respondent has contested this position. It is stated that under the relevant provisions contained in the prospectus it is provided that if the dues are not deposited by the given date the right to admission stands forfeited and the seat thus, goes to the next person on merit.
3. During the course of hearing the argument for and against this preposition have been made. However, this question need not be decided as it has transpired during the hearing that the period of the course is coming to an end on 15‑7‑2001. Even if this petition is allowed, the petitioner cannot join the course nor complete the required number of attendance of lectures. The Director Institute of Chemical Engineering and Technology Professor Dr. Shafqat Nawaz is also present in person states that admission to the next course will open in November, 2001 and petitioner can validly apply. In the estimate of Shafqat Nawaz the petitioner has a good chance of admission although at the same time he stated that the admission cannot be promised. This petition in the circumstances, is disposed of with the option to the petitioner to apply for admission in the fresh course in November, 2001. It is directed that the petitioner's case for admission will be processed, in accordance with law and if possible sympathetically. No order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./U‑14/L Order accordingly.