2006 PLP 1536 (SCMR)
SAJID HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1536 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | SAJID HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1536 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1536 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1536 (SCMR) (SAJID HUSSAIN and others — Petitioners Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amir Alam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th December, 2004.
- The learned Advocate Supreme Court submits that the petitioners had not been sent to the Court premises for maintenance of law and order and had gone there merely to arrest some accused person who had moved a petition for his release on pre-arrest bail. This submission is being negated by the record according to which the petitioners had been sent to the Court premises for "Urdu".
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 13-7-2004 passed in Appeals Nos.562 to 568 and 608 of 2004) .
S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Service Tribunal found that petitioners had ample opportunity to defend their jobs before competent forum seized of the matter during the course of disciplinary proceedings and no illegality existed vis-a-vis said proceedings
Petitioner could not show existence of any substantial question of law of public importance which could justify grant of leave to petitioners to file appeal
Even otherwise, Supreme Court would not resolve factual controversies in jurisdiction envisaged by Art. 212(3) of the Constitution.
Judgment & Decree
The learned Advocate Supreme Court submits that the petitioners had not been sent to the Court premises for maintenance of law and order and had gone there merely to arrest some accused person who had moved a petition for his release on pre-arrest bail. This submission is being negated by the record according to which the petitioners had been sent to the Court premises for "Urdu".
2. Be that as it may, it is not permissible for us to resolve factual controversies in this jurisdiction envisaged by Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It had been found by the learned Service Tribunal that the petitioners had ample opportunity to defend their jobs before the competent forum seized of the matter during the course of disciplinary proceedings and no illegality existed vis-a-vis the said proceedings. The learned counsel has not been able to show the existence of any substantial question of law of great public importance which could justify grant of leave to the petitioners to file appeals.
3. Civil Petitions Nos.2738-L of 2004 to 2745-L of 2004 are therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. H.B.T./S-97/SC Petitions dismisse