2006 PLP 1376 (SCMR)
A.R. AWAN and others — Petitioners Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1376 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas, Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | A.R. AWAN and others — Petitioners Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Local Government Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1376 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Local Government Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1376 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas, Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1376 (SCMR) (A.R. AWAN and others — Petitioners Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hafeez Lakho, Advocate Supreme Court and Suleman Habibullah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 100(2) & Sched VI, Part II
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Violation of petitioners of Cls.2, 29 & 31 read with Item No.59 of Part II, Schedule VI of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979
Petitioners were acquitted by the Special Magistrate
High Court, while upholding order of acquittal, had determined the scale of fee payable by petitioners and left it open to the discretion of authorities to determine the same and collect it accordingly
While determining scale of licence fee in appeals against acquittal, High Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction as it was not competent to determine question of rate of licence fee in such proceedings and should have left that question for examination by the Authority concerned
Important question of law of public importance having been raised in the petition, leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether impugned judgment of High Court could be sustained at law.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Above said petitions are directed against consolidated judgment of Sindh High Court, dated 27-6-2005 dismissing respondent's appeals against the acquittal of the petitioners A for violation of clauses 2, 29 and 31 read with Item No.59 of Part-II of Schedule VI of Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 punishable under section 100(2) of the said Ordinance.
2. Precise charge .against petitioners appear to be that they have been running dyeing textile factories in S.I.T.E. area within the territorial limits of erstwhile Karachi, Metropolitan Corporation without obtaining any licence and payment of requisite fee to K.M.C.
3. Upon their trial they were acquitted by Special Magistrate, K.M.C. Karachi vide order/judgment dated 17-10-1995. Respondents' appeals have been dismissed by the High Court through the impugned judgment but the petitioners are seriously aggrieved by concluding paragraph No.28 of the judgment in which the High Court while upholding the order of acquittal has determined the scale of fee payable by the petitioners and left it open to discretion of the respondents to determine the same and collect it with effect from the years 1976-77 to B December, 1979 and from the year 1980 onwards.
4. It is inter alia contended that while determining the scale of licence fee in. appeals against acquittal High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction as it was not competent to determine the question of rate of licence fee in such proceedings and should have left this question for examination by the authority concerned.
5. As important question of law of public importance has been raised in these petitions, leave to appeal is granted to consider whether the impugned judgment of the High Court can be sustained at law. H.B.T./A-45/SC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.