1998 PLP 2738 (SCMR)
Col. (Retd.) M.R. HASSAN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O., MARGALLA, ISLAMABAD and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2738 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza, Muhammad Munir Khan and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ |
| Parties | Col. (Retd.) M.R. HASSAN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O., MARGALLA, ISLAMABAD and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2738 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2738 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza, Muhammad Munir Khan and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2738 (SCMR) (Col. (Retd.) M.R. HASSAN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O., MARGALLA, ISLAMABAD and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Shahid Hamid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Shahid Hamid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 4‑4‑1995 in Writ Petition No. 1331 of 1993). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Alternate remedy of Intra‑Court Appeal although available to petitioner, yet he did not avail the same and directly approached Supreme Court‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Order impugned in petition for leave to appeal could have been challenged in Intra‑Court Appeal but petitioner chose to come to Supreme Court directly without availing remedy of Intra Court Appeal‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was not entertained and same was dismissed with observation, that petitioner, if so advised, should file Intra‑Court Appeal in High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 4-4-1995 in Writ Petition No. 1331 of 1993).
Art. 185(3)
Alternate remedy of Intra-Court Appeal although available to petitioner, yet he did not avail the same and directly approached Supreme Court
Effect
Order impugned in petition for leave to appeal could have been challenged in Intra-Court Appeal but petitioner chose to come to Supreme Court directly without availing remedy of Intra Court Appeal
Petition for leave to appeal was not entertained and same was dismissed with observation, that petitioner, if so advised, should file Intra-Court Appeal in High Court
Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused in circumstances. Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Shahid Hamid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. The order impugned in this petition for leave to appeal could have been challenged in Intra-Court Appeal but the petitioner chose to come to this Court directly without availing the remedy of I.-C.A. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain this petition which is accordingly dismissed with the observation that the petitioner, if so advised, may file I.-C.A. in the High Court. A.A./M-145/S Leave refused