1988 PLP 1944 (SCMR)
AZIZUR REHM AN — Petitioner Versus FATA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1944 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | AZIZUR REHM AN — Petitioner Versus FATA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1944 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1944 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1944 (SCMR) (AZIZUR REHM AN — Petitioner Versus FATA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.S.Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1988.
- M.S.Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 22-9-1987, passed in Writ Petition No.106 of 1981). --Arts.199 & 185(3)--Termination of services--Petitioner filed appeal against termination of his services but before any action could be taken on his appeal, he moved High Court through a Constitutional petition--Result of his appeal came to his knowledge before the hearing. of his writ petition yet petitioner made no effort to get his writ petition amended thereby challenging decision of appellate authority- Held, since an adequate remedy was available to petitioner, he could not have approached High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction without exhausting said remedy--Order of High Court, dismissing petitioner's writ petition mainly on ground that he did not pursue his appeal as was required of him, upheld--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
M.S.Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1988. ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 22‑9‑1987.
2. The petitioner's services were terminated on 14‑1‑1981. He filed an appeal but before any action could be taken oh his appeal, he moved the High Court through a constitutional petition on 18‑2‑1981. which was ultimately dismissed on 22‑9‑1987.
3. The learned Judges have dismissed the writ petition mainly on, the ground that the petitioner did not pursue the appeal as was required of him and thus, declined to exercise their discretion in his
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. We do not find any merit in this case. We must say that this case has not been properly handled. Since an adequate remedy was available to the petitioner, he could not have approached the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction without exhausting the said remedy. Further, his appeal was decided on 27‑5‑1981, the result of which came to his knowledge subsequently but positively before the hearing of the writ petition; yet no effort was made by him to get his writ petition amended thereby challenging the decision of the appellate Authority.
5. Thus finding no force in this petition, the same is dismissed. M. Y . H . /A‑316/S Petition dismissed.