1997 PLP 2261 (MLD)
NOOR JEHAN SHAH — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY
| Citation | 1997 PLP 2261 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NOOR JEHAN SHAH — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 2261 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 2261 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 2261 (MLD) (NOOR JEHAN SHAH — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Javaid Qazi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.199
Constitutional petition
Scope
Petitioner's grievance was against respondent (Housing Society) relating to allotment/cancellation of plot
Constitutional petition could be maintained against any person who was performing functions in connection with affairs of Federation or Province or Local Authority
Respondent did not fulfil any of said conditions and was, thus, not amenable to Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Constitutional petition being misconceived was not maintainable in circumstances.
Art.199(1)(a)(i)
Constitutional petition
Primary test. The primary test for maintainability of petition under Art. 199(1)(a)(i) must always be whether the functions entrusted to the organization or person concerned are indeed functions of the State involving some exercise of sovereign of public powers; whether the control of the organization in a substantial manner is in the hands of Government, and whether the bulk of the funds is provided by the State.
Judgment & Decree
Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar and Distillery PLD 1975 SC 244 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Art.199(1)(a)(i)
Constitutional petition
Primary test. The primary test for maintainability of petition under Art. 199(1)(a)(i) must always be whether the functions entrusted to the organization or person concerned are indeed functions of the State involving some exercise of sovereign of public powers; whether the control of the organization in a substantial manner is in the hands of Government, and whether the bulk of the funds is provided by the State. Salahuddin v.. Frontier Sugar and Distillery PLD 1975 SC 244 fol. Iftikhar Javaid Qazi for Petitioner. The petitioner claims to have been allotted a plot of land measuring 148 square yards vide order passed by the respondents, dated 12-2-1995. Subsequently, she was allotted an extra land measuring about 58 square yards which was adjacent to the petitioner's plot. The petitioner paid the respondent's dues for the said extra land but on 12-7-1996, the petitioner received a letter from the respondent intimating her that allotment of the said extra land, measuring 58 square yards, had been cancelled. Feeling aggrieved by such action, the petitioner has approached this Court for redress. The first question, which requires to be determined, is, whether this petition is maintainable against the respondent which is a housing authority. Under Article 199 of the Constitution, a writ can be maintained against a person who is performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a province or a local authority. The respondent does not fall within the ambit of any of the said expressions. It would not be out of place to make reference in this regard to the case of Salahuddin v. Frontier Suqar and Distillery PLD 1975 SC
244. In the said case, a question had arisen before the Supreme Court as to import of the said expressions occurring in Article 199(1)(a)(i) of the Constitution. It would be worthwhile to refer to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in this regard: "The primary test must always be whether the functions entrusted to the organization or person concerned are indeed functions of the State involving some exercise of sovereign or public powers; whether the control of the organization in a substantial manner is in the hands of Government, and whether the bulk of the funds is provided by the State." Needless to say that the respondent does not fulfil any of the said conditions as laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment, therefore, it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In the result, the petition is misconceived and the same is, therefore, dismissed alongwith the miscellaneous applications. A.A./N-28/K Applications dismissed.