1989 SCMR 2019 (PLP)
TARIQ LATIF SHEIKH and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus PRESIDENT, CANTONMENT BOARD, MULTAN
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 2019 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | TARIQ LATIF SHEIKH and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus PRESIDENT, CANTONMENT BOARD, MULTAN |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 2019 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 SCMR 2019 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 SCMR 2019 (PLP) (TARIQ LATIF SHEIKH and 7 others‑‑Petitioners Versus PRESIDENT, CANTONMENT BOARD, MULTAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑Arts.185 (3) & 199‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against interim regulatory order of short duration granted by the High Court‑‑Petitioners' contention was that being necessary parties in constitutional petition before the High Court, they were not impleaded and that no violation of any law had taken place and no prejudice could be pleaded by the writ petitioner for claiming the interim relief‑ High Court's interim regulatory order being of short duration was capable of rectification or modification on good cause being shown by the petitioners on appearance before the High Court‑‑More appropriate course for petitioners would be to seek and obtain hearing in the proceedings and adjudication in the matter after hearing‑‑Supreme Court desired that the urgency which High Court had shown in ordering early fixation of the matter be maintained in handling the case‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
- Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th June, 1989.
- 2. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Advocate, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has expressed more than one grievance against the proceedings in the High Court. In the first place it is contended that the petitioners who are necessary parties, had moved the 'no‑confidence motion', and had initiated the proceedings, which had brought the other party to the High Court, were not impleaded as party. The proceedings in the High Court took place without associating them or informing them of it. It is also contended that when applications were filed pointing out this omission, they were dismissed on a very technical view of the matter. Besides, no violation of any law had taken place and in any case no prejudice could be pleaded by the Writ Petitioner for claiming the relief that he did. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the interim order is couched in words which have precluded further proceedings in the Cantonment Board on the basis of another and subsequent No‑confidence motion moved by the petitioners conforming to the strict requirement of the law. This has created a stalemate and made the functioning of the Cantonment Board impossible.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 21‑5‑1989, passed in Writ Petition No. 847 of 1989).
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The eight elected Members of Multan Cantonment Board seek leave to appeal against an interim Order passed by the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, on 21‑5‑1989, whereby while admitting a Constitution petition and directing its early fixation the Court granted the interim relief in the following words:‑ "Meanwhile the proceedings in respect of no‑confidence motion moved against the petitioner are stayed."
2. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Advocate, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has expressed more than one grievance against the proceedings in the High Court. In the first place it is contended that the petitioners who are necessary parties, had moved the 'no‑confidence motion', and had initiated the proceedings, which had brought the other party to the High Court, were not impleaded as party. The proceedings in the High Court took place without associating them or informing them of it. It is also contended that when applications were filed pointing out this omission, they were dismissed on a very technical view of the matter. Besides, no violation of any law had taken place and in any case no prejudice could be pleaded by the Writ Petitioner for claiming the relief that he did. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the interim order is couched in words which have precluded further proceedings in the Cantonment Board on the basis of another and subsequent No‑confidence motion moved by the petitioners conforming to the strict requirement of the law. This has created a stalemate and made the functioning of the Cantonment Board impossible.
3. Even if all the grievances of the petitioners are prima facie found to be of substance, the fact remains that it is an interim regulatory order of short duration against which this petition for leave to appeal has been filed. The order is capable of rectification or modification on good cause being shown by the petitioners on appearance before the High Court. If the applications filed in the matter were defective, the defect could have been cured and an adjudication obtained. Where lawyers represent parties, we do expect near perfection in drawing up documents and in presentation of the case of the parties. The more appropriate course for the petitioners, in the circumstances, would be to seek and obtain hearing in the proceedings and adjudication in the matter after hearing. We hope that the urgency which the High Court has shown in ordering early fixation of the matter shall be maintained in handling the case.
4. We consider that this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal at this stage. Hence the petition is dismissed. A.A./T‑43/S Leave refused.