2008 PLP 222 (CLC)
KARACHI WATCH — Petitioner Versus IMRAN FASIHI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 222 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KARACHI WATCH — Petitioner Versus IMRAN FASIHI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance (V of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 222 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance (V of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 222 (CLC)?
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: 2008 PLP 222 (CLC) (KARACHI WATCH — Petitioner Versus IMRAN FASIHI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khaliq Ahmed for Respondent No. 1.
- Anwar Ali Shah for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199 & 264
General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.6
Constitutional petition
Effect
Respondent had applied for regularization of the building in question during the life time of Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979 which later on was repealed
Effect
Any right/ privilege/obligation or liability acquired or incurred under a repealed enactment, would survive notwithstanding its repeal
Direction was issued to the Authority to decide respondent's regularization application in accordance with law within specified time.
Judgment & Decree
Mr. Muhammad Saleem Samo, learned Amicus Curiae, has pointed out that the petition has been kept pending only to decide the issue whether after the expiry of the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979, K.B.C.A. could still regularize unauthorized construction etc., as in the present matter. In this regard Mr. Saleem Samo has submitted that the above mentioned Ordinance was promulgated on 19-3-2002 and expired on 18-3-2003 as per section 1(3) thereof. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 had applied for regularization of the building in question on 31-5-2002 during the life of the Ordinance. Consequently, per Article 264 of the Constitution which is synonymous with section 6 of the General Clauses Act, inter alia, any right/privilege/obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any repealed enactment would survive. Hence, per learned amicus curiae the right of the respondent No.1 to have at least his application for regularization decided by KBCA in accordance with the then existing law would survive. In support of his submission, he has relied upon Jannat-ul-Haq v. Abbas Khan 2001 SCMR 1073. All the other learned counsel concur with the submission made by the learned amicus curiae. We have heard 'the learned amicus curiae and in our opinion he has cited the law correctly as enshrined in Article 264 of the Constitution and section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which provide inter alia, any right/privilege/obligation or liability acquired or incurred under a repealed enactment would survive notwithstanding the repeal. Admittedly, the Ordinance in question was promulgated on 19-3-2002 and expired on 18-3-2003 whereas the respondent No.1 applied for regularization on 31-5-2002. Consequently, we would dispose of this petition and direct the K.B.C.A. to decide the respondent No.1's regularization application in accordance with law within one month from today and report compliance thereafter. H.B.T./K-32/K Order accordingly.