Register
YLR 2017

2017 PLP 1136 (YLR)

Malik MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR EXCISE AND TAXATION, MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD and 5 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Islamabad
Decided Date
W.P. No.531 of 2017, decided on 27th February, 2017.
Honorable Judges
Noor-ul-Haq N. Qureshi, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2017 PLP 1136 (YLR)
Forum / Court Islamabad
Bench Members Noor-ul-Haq N. Qureshi, J
Parties Malik MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR EXCISE AND TAXATION, MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD and 5 others — Respondents
Primary Law Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 1136 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 1136 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Islamabad bench comprising: Noor-ul-Haq N. Qureshi, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 1136 (YLR) (Malik MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR EXCISE AND TAXATION, MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965)

Representation

  • Faisal Iqbal Khan for Petitioner.
  • Imran Feroz for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss.34 & 35

General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.21

Cancellation of ownership

Jurisdiction

Locus poenitentiae, principle of

Applicability

Petitioner was aggrieved of order passed by authorities cancelling ownership of motor in question in exercise of proceedings under Ss.34 & 35 of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965

Validity

Principle of locus poenitentiae did not come in way the rescinding earlier orders

Order of transfer in question in favour of anybody was passed fraudulently and the same could not be protected by principle of locus poenitentiae

Fraud perpetuated conjointly was surfaced on the record

Technical relief could not be granted merely for the reason that Excise and Taxation Officer had no power under Ss.34 & 35 of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, to cancel ownership

Such power of rescission was always available with authorities who issued order having equal power to rescind the same

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. 2005 SCMR 1814 ref.

Legal Tools

Metadata Directory

  • Journal: YLR
  • Volume Year: 2017
  • Citation Ref: 2017 PLP 1136 (YLR)

Cite & Link (Backlink Generator)

Are you writing a blog or referencing this case? Copy the optimized HTML link below to cite this judgment on your website and create a legal backlink:

HTML Backlink Code:
Text Citation:

Related Judgments

  • 2017 Y L R 2481 MOHAMMAD SAJJAD and 2 others — Appellants Versus NEELUM SHAHEEN and another — Respondents
  • 2017 Y L R 2466 KHIZAR BADSHAH — Appellant Versus Mst. TAYYABA FATIMA and 3 others — Respondents
  • 2017 Y L R 2333 ISHTIAQ AHMED — Petitioner Versus The STATE through Additional Advocate General and another — Respondents
  • 2017 Y L R 2170 MOHAMMAD SALEEM and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE through Additional Advocate General — Respondent
  • 2017 Y L R 130 MUHAMMAD AMEER — Petitioner Versus The STATE through Advocate General and another — Respondents
  • 2017 Y L R 1895 AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and another — Appellants Versus WAHEED AHMED KHAN and 10 others — Respondents