Suspension and revocation
Suspension and revocation legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Petitioner company was granted generation license but it failed to fulfill the requirements of the agreement, thus did not generate electricity
Authorities issued notice to petitioner for recovery of annual generation license fee
Validity
When name of petitioner company was withdrawn from the list of projects, it was not possible for them to continue their business and make payment towards license fee
Imposition of fine was to be assessed, if they would have continued their operation or construction
Action initiated by authorities against petitioner was contrary to law and legal aspect with regard to invoke S.28 of Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 was grossly ignored by the Authority
Initiation of proceedings and onward superstructure built on passing any other orders including review was uncalled for and not sustainable under law
National Electric Power Regulatory Authority should have considered for invoking S.28 of Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 thereby revocation order suspending license should have been passed in view of prevailing circumstances as pointed out by petitioner company in its letters communicated time to time and responding notices and other proceedings initiated
Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
"Suspension and revocation", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124957040
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Suspension and revocation"
2016 C L C 1304
GUJRANWALA ENERGY LIMITED — Petitioner Versus NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER REGULATORY AUTHORITY (NEPRA) — Respondent
Court: Islamabad2009 C L D 581
JAVED KHAN and 2 others — Petitioners Versus STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN through Governor, State Bank and 6 others — Respondents
Court: IslamabadP L D 1981 Lahore 495
SABOOR KHAN — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUJRANWALA-Respondent.
Court: R. III(1)-Rule III (1) of Rules providing an additional penalty, held, cannot be said to be consistent with Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979.--Interpretation of statutes.1981L67
Ch. GHULAM ALI‑Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE — Respondent
Court: Art. 199‑Writ proceedings ‑ Adequate remedy‑Pendency of appeal, held, in no way precludes exercise of constitutional jurisdic tion by High Court in appropriate cases where alternative remedy deemed not efficacious.‑Appeal (civil).1985 C L C 2680
AAMER SAEED — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2014 P T D 966
Messrs KHATRI BROTHERS Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 3 others
Court: Sindh High Court1989 M L D 3032
ALI RAIDER — Petitioner Versus IJAZ HUSSAIN MALIK and another — Respondents
Court: Lahore2018 Y L R 1785
SUNBIZ PRIVATE LIMITED (7 NEWS TV PAKISTAN) through Abbas Ali Khan — Appellant Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Information and 3 others — Respondents
Court: Islamabad1984 C L C 3361
IDRAR ASGHAR‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUJRAT AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
Court: Lahore1968 P Cr
ALI HAIDER‑Petitioner Versus (1) IJAZ HUSSAIN MALIK, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAWALPINDI AND
Court: Lahore