Order

Former is actuated by extraneous consideration whereas the latter arises where a public authority deliberately acts contrary to the objects, requirements and conditions of a valid exercise of power even though that may be without any ulterior motive.

Any order or instrument passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction or made in disregard of mandatory provision of law would be non-existent.

When basic order is without lawful authority then no superstructure can be built thereon, and if that is the case then such structure also falls on the ground automatically.

Such operation cannot be given to an executive order for usurping contractual rights and obligation already accrued.

Every "illegal order" could not be said to be a "void order", however every "void order" would certainly be termed as "illegal order".

Non-implementation of bad order makes no difference.

Non-implementation of bad order makes no difference.

Order which in illegal, unlawful, based on fraud, void ab initio or passed without jurisdiction cannot create any right to be defended.

When basic order is without lawful authority then the superstructure built on it falls on the ground automatically.

Order passed by Competent Authority under the dictate of superior is not sustainable in the eye of law.

When basic order is without lawful authority then superstructure falls on the ground automatically.

If a legal order has been passed by the Prime Minister and is not being implemented it creates a right in the concerned person to move the appropriate forum that the order may be implemented.

Filing of appeal or revision against an order would not vacate the order and so long as the order was not set aside or was not suspended, same would remain in field.

To say that an order is a nullity is not to say that the order is not an order for any purpose or is legally non-existent for the purpose of appeal.

Arbitrary and non-speaking order, passed at the back of the party affected thereby, reviewing another order without pointing out infirmity and illegality in that order was bad in law and liable to be set aside.

Civil servants after their conviction were proceeded against under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 and removed from service-Such civil servants were subsequently pardoned by the Zonal Martial Law Administrator and directed to be reinstated in service

Order of reinstatement in service not implemented

Effect

Civil servants were not removed from service by and under their order of conviction by Summary Military Court, rather they were proceeded against and dismissed under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 in consequence thereof

Order of reinstatement by Martial Law Administrator was thus clearly beyond his jurisdiction under S.143 of Pakistan Army Act, 1952-Unless legal intention in the form of Martial Law Regulation or Martial Law Order was clearly expressed, or the instruction was a consequence of some legal document, no advantage could be taken of a simple instruction issued by C.M.LA.'s Secretariat for the reinstatement of civil servant.

Legality of an order depends on the substance and not the form.

Order- Void order-Incorrect order - Distinction-An order found incorrect considering facts and law-Incorrect and not void

Order passed mala fide without jurisdiction or in violation of mandatory provisions of Law-Void.

Order Issued by Government-Whether setting out legal authority for issuing such order necessary for its validity.