1986 PLP 1468 (SCMR)
Raja MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE DISTRICT FOOD CONTROLLER, JHELUM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1468 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Karam Elahee Chauhan and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | Raja MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE DISTRICT FOOD CONTROLLER, JHELUM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1468 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1468 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1468 (SCMR) (Raja MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE DISTRICT FOOD CONTROLLER, JHELUM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Riyasat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Neme for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th August, 1981.
- Riyasat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 185(3) & 199--Martial Law Instruction No. 22--Vested right-- Petitioner given provisional and temporary authorisation for a Ration depot--Petitioner subsequently was not found suitable for confirmation and it was decided to draw lots in accordance with Martial Law Instruction No.2--Petitioner participated in drawing of lots and on failure, challenged decision through writ petition which was dismissed on ground that no vested right had accrued to him--Supreme Court declined to interfere because (i) no vested right had accrued to petitioner, (ii) change in system, if any, was a matter of policy not controlled by Courts, and (iii) petitioner, after having participated in drawing of lots, coin not later challenge result merely because he remained unsuccessful--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑The petitioner was given authorisation for a depot on a temporary basis subject to confirmation by the District Allotment Board. Subsequently, the District Allotment Board did not consider him ‑ suitable for confirmation and decided to draw lots in accordance with Martial Law Instruction No.
22. The petitioner also participated in the drawing of lots but was unsuccessful. He challenged the decision through Writ Petition No. 3264 of 1977 but the same was dismissed on 12=6‑1979 upon the view that no vested right had accrued to the petitioner as he had held the depot only on an ad hoc and temporary basis.
2. It is urged that as the petitioner's temporary authorisation had been given before the issuance of Martial Law Instruction No. 22, his case ought to have been, dealt with under the previous rules and not under the said instructions. We find no force in the contention, firstly, because no vested right had accrued to the petitioner by the temporary authorisation made in his favour, such as could be said to have been saved despite the change in the system; secondly, because the change in the system, if any, was a matter of policy which is not controlled by the Courts, and thirdly, because the petitioner, who has himself participated in the drawing of lots, cannot later challenge the result merely because he remained unsuccessful. The petition for grant of leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. M. I. Petition dismissed.