Home Maxims & Terms Delegation meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Delegation

Delegation legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2021 CLC 2169 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Ss.8 & 13Meetings of the Authority, etc.DelegationScope

Delegation is permissible under S.13 of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, which authorizes the Authority to delegate the powers to the persons enlisted in the said section (including the Chairman or Members) to discharge the responsibilities and exercise the powers conferred by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002.

2011 PTD 321 INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent
Ss.210 & 122DelegationFurther approval from CommissionerScope

Taxation Officer having discharged his duty under the authority delegated to him by the Commissioner under S.210 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, there was no need to seek further approval from Commissioner for proceeding to amend the assessment under S.122(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

2010 PLC(CS) 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
KindsScope and principlesMaxim: delegatus non potest delegareApplicability

Scope.

2010 PTD 660 INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent
S.210Delegation

Commissioner in his discretion may delegate all or any of his powers or functions. to Taxation Officer which did not seem open to any question and any functions/powers so delegated, when performed, shall be deemed to have been performed by the Commissioner

Delegation of powers to the Taxation Officer was perceptibly a dynamic step which enabled the Commissioner in letting disposal of cases by the Taxation Officer also that might rise on high side in future

Taxation Officer assists the Commissioner by remaining under his direct control and supervision.

2010 PTD 660 INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent
Ss. 239 & 210SavingsDelegation

Assessments pending in respect of any income year ending on or before 30th day of June, 2002 on the commencement of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 shall have to be dealt with in accordance with Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

As to procedural matters, there seems a departure as to the forums of processing of those pending assessments and the jurisdiction had been conferred on an income tax authority, made competent under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which shall act in accordance with the procedure specified in the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

In the scheme of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the tax authority was the Commissioner to whom all the powers of processing the cases for assessment were vested but there were also provisions of delegation of powers and function by the Commissioner to the Taxation Officer.

2007 PTD 2635 INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent
S. 210(1A)Delegation

Amendment in S.210(1A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 had only drawn a line in respect of delegation of the power by the Commissioner of Income Tax

Power under S.122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was not to be assigned to an officer less than an officer of the rank of an Additional Commissioner

Prior to said date the Commissioner of Income Tax could delegate the power to cancel an order under S.122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to a Taxation Officer of Grade 17 or Grade 18 in addition to Grade 19 and that did not have any effect on the proceedings initiated and continued by the department specially for the reason that the order was cancelled after the insertion of the said provision

Such was notwithstanding the fact that the Commissioner of Income Tax had the powers to assign the powers to cancel the order under S.122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to Taxation Officer of any rank before said amendment; however, after 1-7-2004 he could now delegate the power of cancellation of an order to an Additional Commissioner only.

1987 MLD 2457 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
DelegationDelegators by delegating their powers do not get denuded of those powers

Powers vesting in a delegator by a statute can always be exercised by him unless on being already exercised by delegatee same stood exhausted.

1971 PLD 333 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Delegation Delegation-Law of delegation of legislative powers fully discussed.

1968 PLD 219 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Delegation Delegation

Administrative, judicial or quasi judicial bodies and Courts can delegate their functions to smaller bodies or persons.

1966 PLD 854 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Delegation Delegation-Rule against excessive delegation-Whether should not be confined to an examination of impugned provisions from point of view of their reasonableness vis-a-vis exercise of a Fundamental Right-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 6.

1963 PLD 296 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Delegation Delegation-(Powers of requisition)-Whether delegator is divested of all powers by delegation-Exercise of powers by delegator in spite of delegation whether withdrawal of delegation itself(Quaere).

1957 PLD 345 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Delegation

Of legislative power-Delegation of power to make rules for Road Transport Board-Not unwarranted.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Delegation", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/14691

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Delegation"

PLD 2024
2023-June-15

P L D 2024 Supreme Court 230

Messrs FUN INFOTAINMENT (PVT.) LIMITED/ NEO T.V., LAHORE — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN ELECTRONIC MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITY through its Chairman, Islamabad and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
SCMR 2019
Criminal Appeals Nos. 322 and 323 of 2018, decided on 12th February, 2019.

2019 S C M R 846

MUHAMMAD RAFIQ — Appellant Versus STATE (NAB) — Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
SCMR 2023
Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2022, decided on 10th November, 2022.

2023 S C M R 1043

PAKISTAN ELECTRONIC MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITY (PEMRA), ISLAMABAD — Appellant Versus PAKISTAN BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION and another — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLD 2025
Succession Appeal No. 01 of 2023, decided on 13th November, 2023.

P L D 2025 Balochistan 21

SHAZIA JAFFAR and 4 others — Appellants Versus GENERAL PUBLIC and 2 others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 1964
Writ Petition No. 87/R of 1961, decided on 24th January 1964,

P L D 1964 (W

ABDUL GHANI‑Petitioner Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER Respondents

Court: Held, that orders made by the Assistant Settlement Commis sioners, Deputy Settlement Commissioners, Additional Settlement Commissioners and Settlement Commissioners in exercise of the powers delegated to them by the Chief Settlement Commissioner section 31 (2) are as much subject to his general superintendence and control under section 9 of the Act arid open to scrutiny in an appeal or revision under sections 19 and 20 of the Act as the orders made by them in exercise; of their normal functions, under the Act.
PLD 1976
Writ Petition No. 113/R of 1970, decided on 5th May 1975. __

P L D 1976 Lahore 109

MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, WEST PAKISTAN,

Court: -- Ss. 43(4) & 58(2)-Delegation of powers-Delegated power, if exercised-Exhausts itself and not subject to appeal and revision unless contrary intention clearly expressed by statute-Power under S. 43(4) being judicial power, not delegatable unless Legislature expressly autho rises, and expressly excepted from delegation by S. 58(2)-Revisional powers of Custodian under S. 43(4) - Could not be delegated -Custodian while allocating duties to Additional Custodian for confirm ing declarations granted by Deputy Custodian, held, did not delegate his revisional powers -Custodian's observation that Additional Custodian would be competent to pass final orders-Did not mean that it would not be subject to provisions of Act XII of 1957-Delega tion of powers.
PLC(CS) 1989
Appeals Nos. SG‑201 and S.A. 220 of 1988, decided on 30th April, 1988.

1989 P L C 942

HABIB BANK LTD. and 2 others Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN

Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab
SCMR 2023
The Bank of Punjab v. The Commissioner Inland Revenue, C.As. Nos. 1669 to 1692 of 2013, decided on 06.02.2019; Pak Telecom v. FBR, 2013 PTD 2151; Pakistan Tabacco v. Additional Commissioner 2013 PTD 747 and Shell (Pakistan) v. Pakistan 2013 PTD 1012 ref.

2023 S C M R 1166

ALLIED BANK LIMITED — Petitioner Versus The COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PTD 2023
N/A

2023 P T D 411

ALLIED BANK LIMITED Versus APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE and 2 others

Court: Lahore High Court
PLD 1970
Criminal Revision No. 918 of 1969, decided on 4th February 1970.

P L D 1970 Lahore 753

GHULAM JAFFER‑ — Petitioner Versus Agha AZHAR HUSSAIN AND 4 OTHERS — Respondents

Court: