Repeal of provision
Repeal of provision legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Contention of petitioner was that representatives elected under Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001, were unlawfully removed and were replaced by Administrators through Sindh Local Government (Fifth Amendment) Act, 2010, who were unlawfully utilizing local government funds that could be utilized only after authorization by concerned local councils
Validity
After passing of 18th Amendment in the Constitution, each Provincial Government under Art.140-A of the Constitution, was bound by law to establish Local Government system and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to elected representative of local governments
Local government elections in the Province of Sindh became due in year, 2009, and Provincial Government was duty bound to fulfil requirements of Arts.32 & 140-A of the Constitution by holding fresh local government elections under S.159 of Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001, immediately when elections became due
Provincial Government violated provisions of Arts.2, 2-A, 8, 32 & 140-A of the Constitution, Ss.150(4) & 159 of Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and rules made thereunder
Provincial Government also violated valuable voting/fundamental rights of public guaranteed by the Constitution
Valuable voting /fundamental rights of people of Pakistan guaranteed by the Constitution to vote and to elect representatives of their own choice could not be taken away, abridged or sabotaged in any way through any type of legislation or action
High Court directed the Provincial Government to hold local government elections as envisaged under Arts.32 & 140-A of the Constitution, within a period of ninety days
High Court expected that Election Commissioner would be able to compile electoral lists in due course of time to enable Local Government to hold elections within the period of ninety days
Petition was allowed accordingly.
"Repeal of provision", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124942216
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Repeal of provision"
1983 P L C 721
TEXTILE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. Versus SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court: Karachi High Court1984 S C M R 957
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑Respondent
Court: ---Art. 185(3)‑West Pakistan Revenue Department District Ministerial Service Rules, 1964, rr. 2 (i), 5(8), 11 & Appendix---District Office Manual, para. 3.5‑Leave to appeal granted to examine question of law whether on enforcement of West Pakistan Revenue Department District Ministerial Service Rules, 1964, provisions of para. 3.5, District Office Manual ceased to have effect and stood repeal by necessary implication.‑Civil service.1984 P L C 532
MUHAMMAD YASIN Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS
Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind1995 M L D 732
Chaudhary KHALIL‑UR‑REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2
Court: LahoreP L D 1987 Lahore 71
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J Versus GHULAM RASOOL AND 5 OTHERS‑ ‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑ Art. 203‑F‑Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M. L. R. 115), para. 25(d) ‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15, fourthly except cl. (b)‑Tenant's right of pre‑emption in respect of land com prised in tenancy‑ Co‑sharer's right to pre‑empt‑Effect of decision of Supreme Court (P' L D 1986 S C 360) on tenant's right of pre‑ emption granted under para. 25(d) of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 and co‑sharer's right of pre‑emption in S. 15 of Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913‑Provisions of para. 25(d) of M. L. R. 115 and provisions of S. 15, fourthly of Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913 except cl. (b) relating to right of pre‑emption having been declared to be repugnant to injunctions of Islam by Supreme Court (P L D 1986 S C 360), failure of Government to amend provisions of law so as to bring such provisions in conformity with injunctions of Islam by specified date viz., 31‑7‑1986, held, would render those provisions as ineffective and inoperative w.e.f. 31‑7‑1986.1995 P L C 205
PAKISTAN POST OFFICES Versus NADEEM AHMED KHAN
Court: Karachi High Court2019 M L D 262
FAZAL MALIK through L.Rs. and others — Petitioners Versus ARSALA KHAN and others — Respondents
Court: PeshawarP L D 2023 Peshawar 12
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others — Petitioners Versus AMEER BAHADUR and others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 2011 Peshawar 41
MIRZA MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHFRIN and 4 others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1965 Dacca 296
MOZAFFAR AHMED‑Petitioner Versus ANWAR ALI AND OTHERS‑Opposite‑Parties
Court: