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

Administrative instructions

Administrative instructions legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2006 PTD 1412 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Administrative instructions should not be acted in a manner, which would negate the mandate of lawSubstantive rights of citizens should not be sacrificed on altar of some procedural and administrative instructions

Principles.

1998 MLD 216 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Administrative instructions

Accused communicating approval /instructions of Chief Minister to Deputy Commissioner which did not require any conscious application of his mind

Accused in such case could not be blamed for he had only acted as post office, while communicating orders of superior Authority to some other authority.

1992 MLD 1969 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent
Administrative instructions

High Court desired Presiding Officer to issue direction to all concerned that while receiving application for supply of certified copies of documents, a date be also given on the receipt issued for the copying fee, indicating that when applicant was required to attend the office for collecting the copies and if on the fixed date certified documents were not collected, then time would start running against him and an obligation would also be fixed on such person to state that why proceedings had not been filed within time.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Administrative instructions", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/21229

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Administrative instructions"

PTD 2006
Income Tax Appeal No.173 of 2000, decided on 8th March, 2005.

2006 P T D 1505

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, ZONE-B Versus Messrs S.K.F. & CO., LAHORE

Court: Lahore High Court
PLC(CS) 2021
Writ Petition No.4396 of 2021/BWP, decided on 3rd June, 2021.

2021 P L C (C

MUHAMMAD IJAZ Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Director General Fisheries, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others

Court: Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Bench)
PLC(CS) 2025
Appeal No. 2850 of 2024, decided on 11th September, 2025.

2025 P L C (C

GHULAM MUSTAFA ZAMAN Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUJRAT and another

Court: Punjab Service Tribunal
PTD 2006
Constitutional Petition No.D-1665 of 2000, decided on 20th October, 2005.

2006 P T D 1412

Messrs CHENAB FABRICS AND PROCESSING MILLS LTD., FAISALABAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 5 others.

Court: Karachi High Court
PLC(CS) 2001
Appeals Nos.609-R, 645-R and 704-R of 1997, decided on 28th January, 1998.

2001 P L C (C

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and 2 others Versus THE SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and 6 others

Court: Federal Service Tribunal
YLR 2002
Criminal Miscellaneous No.354 of 2001, decided on 9th May, 2002.

2002 Y L R 3655

Pir MAQSOOD HUSSAIN SARHANDI‑‑‑Applicant Versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU and others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Karachi
YLR 2023
N/A

2023 Y L R 64

MANZOOR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Punjab Lahore and others — Respondents

Court: Lahore (Bahawalpur Bench)
PLC(CS) 1992
Appeal No. 369 of 1987, decided on 15th January 1991.

1992 P L C (C

Ch. GHULAM NABI Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J&K and 8 others

Court: Service Tribunal AJ&K
PLC 1978
Appeal No. 677 of 1974, decided on 26th April 1975

1978 P L C 46

CHAIRMAN, WAPDA AND OTHERS Versus Malik MUSHTAQ AHMAD

Court: 1st Labour Court Punjab
PLD 1984
Constitutional Petition No. 62 of 1980, decided on 12th September, 1983.

1984K18

MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN‑Petitioner Versus KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Court: ‑ ‑Art. 9 (6)‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑Order passed under Martial Law Order‑‑High Court, held, still has jurisdiction to be satisfied whether impugned order under Martial Law was passed by authority or person prima facie clothed with power which he purported to exercise‑‑Officer neither connected with administration of Martial Law nor authorised to act under relevant law or by Martial Law Authority in terms of relevant Martial Law Order, held further, cannot claim immunity from scrutiny of his order by High Court on ground that he purported to have passed order under Martial Law Order/Regula ration.‑Jurisdiction.