2001 PLP 299 (MLD)
KAMAL AFSAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB BAR COUNCIL through Secretary and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 299 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | KAMAL AFSAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB BAR COUNCIL through Secretary and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | General Clauses Act (X of 1897) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 299 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: General Clauses Act (X of 1897) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 299 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 299 (MLD) (KAMAL AFSAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB BAR COUNCIL through Secretary and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th October, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 24‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑ Administration of justice‑‑‑Order passed by the Authorities was without reasons and evidence of the parties was not discussed-‑‑Effect‑‑‑After addition of S. 24‑A in General Clauses Act, 1897, it was duty of public functionaries to redress grievance of citizens with reasons‑‑‑Matter was remanded to the Authorities for decision afresh. Messrs Air Port Support's case 1998 SCMR 2268 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Messrs Air Port Support's case 1998 SCMR 2268 ref. Shahid Hussain Kadri for Petitioner. Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th October, 2000. Petitioner has challenged the vires of the impugned order, dated 12‑8‑1999 on the ground that the impugned order was passed without reasons. He further submits that the documents of the petitioner were not considered by the Discipline Committee. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative remedy before the higher forum. He further submits that the committee has passed the order after perusing the documents as is evident from para. 4 of the impugned order.
2. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. The impugned order simply reveals that the learned Members have passed the order, after perusing the documents and after hearing the arguments of the parties. Learned Members did not give any reasons and discussed the evidence of the parties. It is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to redress the grievance of the citizens with reasons, after the addition of section 24‑A in the General Clauses Act as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1998 SCMR 2268 (M/s. Air Port Support's case). In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is accepted meaning thereby the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Discipline Committee shall be deemed to be pending adjudication. Parties are directed to appear before the Discipline Committee on 7‑11‑2000 who is directed to decide the same afresh with reasons after providing proper hearing to all the concerned. Disposed of with these observations. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./K‑47/L Petition allowed.