P L D 1970 Supreme Court 158 (PLP)
GOURANGA MOHAN SIKDAR Appellant Versus THE CONTROLLER OF IMPORT AND EXPORT AND 2 OTHERS -Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1970 Supreme Court 158 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | GOURANGA MOHAN SIKDAR Appellant Versus THE CONTROLLER OF IMPORT AND EXPORT AND 2 OTHERS -Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1970 Supreme Court 158 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1970 Supreme Court 158 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1970 Supreme Court 158 (PLP) (GOURANGA MOHAN SIKDAR Appellant Versus THE CONTROLLER OF IMPORT AND EXPORT AND 2 OTHERS -Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Akhtaruddin Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) S. S. Hoda, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Asrarul Hossain, Advocate‑General East Pakistan instructed by A. W. Malilk, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 24th December 1969.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 1st April 1968, in Petition No. 103 of 1968). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98‑High Court disposing of petition (raising substantial question) must pass a speaking judicial order manifesting by itself that Court applied its mind to issues Involved‑Petition dismissed by short order "rejected as there is no substance in It"‑Order, held, not proper. A writ petition filed in the High Court raised a serious question of law as to whether as a consequence of declaration granted by the High Court itself in a previous writ petition, the petitioner was entitled to be restored to the position in which he would have been if the authority concerned had not passed the order impugned in the previous petition. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition by a short order "application is rejected as there is no substance in it". The Supreme Court expressed its regret and: Held, such an order, does not disclose a proper application of the mind of the High Court to the merits of the case that was before it. In view of the fact that a substantial question was raised by the applicant invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, it was the undoubted duty of the High Court to state what the precise point raised by the applicant was and the grounds on which it was rejected. The Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out that "A judicial order must be a speaking order manifesting by itself that the Court has applied its mind to the resolution of the issues involved for their proper adjudication" because "litigants who bring their disputes to the law Courts with the incidental hardships and expenses involved do expect a patient and a judicious treatment of their cases and their determination by proper orders". These repeated observations of the Supreme Court are not receiving the attention that they should by the High Court in spite of the clear mandate contained in Article 63 of the Constitution, which is still applicable "that any decision of the Supreme Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, is binding on all other Courts in Pakistan". The above‑mentioned decisions did enunciate a principle of law which it was the duty of the High Court to follow. Adamjee Lute Mills Limited v. The Province of East Pakistan P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 272 and Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan arid others 20 D L R 221 (S C) ref.
Judgment & Decree
Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98‑High Court disposing of petition (raising substantial question) must pass a speaking judicial order manifesting by itself that Court applied its mind to issues Involved‑Petition dismissed by short order "rejected as there is no substance in It"‑Order, held, not proper. A writ petition filed in the High Court raised a serious question of law as to whether as a consequence of declaration granted by the High Court itself in a previous writ petition, the petitioner was entitled to be restored to the position in which he would have been if the authority concerned had not passed the order impugned in the previous petition. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition by a short order "application is rejected as there is no substance in it". The Supreme Court expressed its regret and: Held, such an order, does not disclose a proper application of the mind of the High Court to the merits of the case that was before it. In view of the fact that a substantial question was raised by the applicant invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, it was the undoubted duty of the High Court to state what the precise point raised by the applicant was and the grounds on which it was rejected. The Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out that "A judicial order must be a speaking order manifesting by itself that the Court has applied its mind to the resolution of the issues involved for their proper adjudication" because "litigants who bring their disputes to the law Courts with the incidental hardships and expenses involved do expect a patient and a judicious treatment of their cases and their determination by proper orders". These repeated observations of the Supreme Court are not receiving the attention that they should by the High Court in spite of the clear mandate contained in Article 63 of the Constitution, which is still applicable "that any decision of the Supreme Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, is binding on all other Courts in Pakistan". The above‑mentioned decisions did enunciate a principle of law which it was the duty of the High Court to follow. Adamjee Lute Mills Limited v. The Province of East Pakistan P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 272 and Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan arid others 20 D L R 221 (S C) ref. Akhtaruddin Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) S. S. Hoda, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. Asrarul Hossain, Advocate‑General East Pakistan instructed by A. W. Malilk, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing : 24th December 1969.