1998 PLP 303 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RIAZ, DIRECTOR‑GENERAL, PAKISTAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MURID AHMAD BALUCH, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT CIVIL DIVISION, PAK. P.W.D., SAHTWAL ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 303 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hafeez Memon and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RIAZ, DIRECTOR‑GENERAL, PAKISTAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MURID AHMAD BALUCH, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT CIVIL DIVISION, PAK. P.W.D., SAHTWAL ‑‑‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 303 (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 303 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hafeez Memon and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 303 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RIAZ, DIRECTOR‑GENERAL, PAKISTAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MURID AHMAD BALUCH, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT CIVIL DIVISION, PAK. P.W.D., SAHTWAL ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st March, 1997.
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 28‑2‑1997 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in C.M. No.688 of 1997). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(1)‑‑‑Civil service‑‑‑High Court taking note of alleged inconsistent and delinquent conduct of civil servant (petitioner) while passing order in a writ petition at a preliminary stage‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant contended that only reason for his filing petition for leave to appeal was that he felt aggrieved by the remarks of High Court, which were likely to prejudice him, therefore, he would be satisfied and would not press his petition for leave to appeal if direction was given to High Court to decide Constitutional petition on its own merits without being influenced by said remarks made regarding him‑‑‑Respondent stated that he would have no objection if such direction was given by the Court‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed as withdrawn‑‑‑High Court, however, was directed not to be influenced by such observations made against civil servant while deciding Constitutional petition on merits. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.
This petition is directed against an order dated 28-2-1997 passed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Civil Miscellaneous No.688 of 1997 filed in Writ Petition No.351 of 1997. In this order passed at the preliminary stage, the learned Single Judge made inter alia the following observations:-- "Prima facie, the conduct of the respondent does not appear to be consistent with the service discipline. He will be put to notice that in case this writ petition is accepted he will have to bear the cost of the petition from his own pocket. Observations with regard to his delinquent conduct may also be made in the final judgment by this Court. " The learned Single Judge further observed that respondent Murid Ahmad Baluch, who had taken charge of Central Civil Division No.III, Islamabad and was performing his function against that post, would not be disturbed. Petitioner Muhammad Riaz, who is Director General of Pak. P.W.D., Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, has appeared in person to argue this petition. The petitioner submitted that the only reason for his filing this petition was that he felt aggrieved by the observations made by the learned Single Judge, reproduced above, which are likely to prejudice him and. therefore, he would be satisfied and will not press this petition if a direction is given to the learned Court to decide the writ petition on its own merits without being influenced by the said observations made regarding the petitioner. Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent stated that he had no objection if such direction, as prayed by the petitioner, is given by this Court. In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. We, however, direct that the learned High Court will not be influenced by the said observations made against the petitioner, while deciding the writ petition on merits. A.A./M-56/S Petition dismissed.