Home Maxims & Terms Functions and jurisdiction meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Functions and jurisdiction

Functions and jurisdiction legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2016 PLD 173 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
R, 17 & Second Sched.Co-operative Societies Act (VII of 1925), Ss. 43 to 44-EConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 139(3)Chief Minister's Inspection Team (CMIT)Functions and jurisdictionDeterminationDistribution of business among departmentsInquiry by Registrar of Cooperative SocietiesInspection of books of indebted societyPowers of Registrar in course of inspection or inquirySpecial measuresConduct of business of Provincial Government

Jurisdiction of Chief Minister's Inspection Team with regard to private complaint for which remedy is available under a statute

Respondent filed application against petitioner Cooperative Society before Chief Minister, levelling allegations of fraud and corruption against the Society and its management, in response to which, Chairman, Chief Minister's Inspection Team (CMIT) issued letter to Member of CMIT to conduct inquiry into the allegations and submit his report

Petitioner contended that CMIT had no jurisdiction to conduct any such parallel inquiry, as the jurisdiction was vested with District Officer (Cooperative), who, having conducted inquiries on all such allegations, had already decided several similar complaints of the same respondent

Validity

Chief Minister's Inspection Team was an independent department, whose basic function was to inspect government departments and government officers to ensure that they were doing their duties and functions efficiently and expeditiously

CMIT had jurisdiction to inspect a department, in case the department or an officer was delaying matters or not doing their work

CMIT was to bring important matters related to functioning of government departments and officers to the notice of Chief Minister for his consideration and necessary orders

CMIT could entertain complaints pertaining to discharge of duties by a department or an officer, and after obtaining necessary orders, could require the department or officer to carry out its functions efficiently and expeditiously

CMIT was strictly required to ensure good governance from Provincial Government department and officers and could carry out special assignments related to the working of the departments and officers on instructions of Chief Minister

Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011, therefore, required CMIT to maintain close liaison with Anti- Corruption Department to ensure good governance from its departments and officers

Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011 did not permit CMIT to assume investigative power on a private complaint, where a forum and specific authority for the same was provided under a statute

Sections 43 to 44-E of Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 gave specific powers to Registrar Cooperative Department to conduct inquires and inspect books of any Cooperative Society

Section 44-E of Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 gave the Registrar special powers for adopting special measures

CMIT was not an additional or alternate forum for private complaints such as that of present respondent

High Court set aside the impugned letter for being against the mandate of Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011

Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Functions and jurisdiction", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124955038

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Functions and jurisdiction"

PLC 1987
Cases Nos. 12(63) and 12(64) of 1984, decided on 14th September,

1987 P L C 361

PAKISTAN INSURANCE CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' UNION, KARACHI Versus PAKISTAN INSURANCE CORPORATION and 7 others

Court: National Industrial Relations Commission
PTD 2021
Writ Petition No.4361 of 2017 (others connected petitions), decided on 29th December, 2020.

2021 P T D 521

NESTLE PAKISTAN LTD. through Senior Manager Legal and another Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and 6 others

Court: Lahore High Court
PTD 2022
Writ Petitions Nos.728, 890 and 924 of 2021, decided on 16th February, 2022.

2022 P T D 1235

USMAN ARSHAD Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue, Islamabad and 6 others

Court: Islamabad High Court
PLD 1987
Constitutional Petition No. S‑80 of 1983, decided on 22nd November, 1986.

P L D 1987 Karachi 67

SAJJAD MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND F. C. M. OF

Court: ‑----- Ss. 15. 16, 22‑A & 53 ‑ Trial of offences of unfair labour practice‑Words "offence" and "case", meaning and scope of-- Trial of offences relating to unfair labour practice, held, was within exclusive jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission. Words and phrases.
PTD 2002
I. T. A. No. 1052/KB of 2000‑2001, decided on 31st October, 2001.

2002 P T D (Trib

N/A

Court: Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan
PTD 2022
Suit No.1872 of 2016, decided on 31st May, 2021.

2022 P T D 812

SALEEM BUTT Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division and 9 others

Court: Sindh High Court
SCMR 2023
Civil Petitions Nos.797 of 2021, 1799-L, 171-L and 172-L of 2022 and 1657-L of 2021, decided on 31st January, 2023.

2023 S C M R 908

OIL AND GAS REGULATORY AUTHORITY through Chairperson and others — Petitioners Versus SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED through Chairperson and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PTD 2016
W.P. No.805 of 2015, decided on 29th April, 2016.

2016 P T D 1675

OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD. through Manager (Pricing) Versus FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman and 2 others

Court: Islamabad High Court
PTD 2016
Writ Petitions Nos.768 and 805 of 2015, decided on 29th April, 2016.

2016 P T D 2332

ZAVER PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED through Director, Islamabad Versus FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman FBR, Islamabad and another

Court: Islamabad High Court
PLD 1978
Miscellaneous Application dated the 7th of May, 1978 by appellant Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1978, decided on 20th May, 1978.

P L D 1978 Supreme Court 125

MR. ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent

Court: ‑‑ Powers and duties of‑Judge's entering into controversy with party to a cause pending before Court‑Not appropriate‑Misleading and incorrect statements and misconceived objections, nevertheless, held, have to be corrected to enable whole matter to be seen in its proper perspective.‑Judge,