Quasi Judicial Orders
Quasi Judicial Orders legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Judicial order must be a speaking order manifesting by itself that the Court has applied its judicial mind to the issues and points of controversy involved in the case
Any judicial order which is not a speaking order and devoid of reasons is not sustainable in law.
Quasi Judicial Orders -Executive orders-Distinction. Held that, if the statutory authority is allowed to pass an order subjectively, based on his personal or private opinion, and does not impose a liability or affect the right of others in a substantial manner, then the order will be executive, but if the statutory order is to be passed objectively, and based on some relevant and existing circumstances and facts, and at the same time substantially affects the rights of others, it would be a quasiJudicial order.
"Quasi Judicial Orders", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/22103
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Quasi Judicial Orders"
2010 C L D 205
Messrs EXCEL FINANCIAL SERVICES (PVT.) LTD. — Appellant Versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (REGISTRATION) — Respondent
Court: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan2026 C L C 990
BILAL-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus EXCISE AND TAXATION MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY and others — Respondents
Court: Islamabad2011 P L C (C
RIFFAT HASSAN and 9 others Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue/
Court: Karachi High CourtP L D 1977 Karachi 836
MESSRS JAN TEXTILE MILLS, KARACHI‑Petitioner Versus SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 2 OTHERS‑‑ Respondents
Court: ‑‑ Art. 199‑Writ‑Non‑consideration of a material piece of evidence in a judicial or quasi judicial order‑Held, one of recognised grounds for interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.‑ Writ.1998 P T D 2588
KISHAN LAL Versus UNION OF INDIA and another
Court: 230 I T R 851985 C L C 1889
YASEEN — Petitioner Versus HUSSAIN BAKHSH and 4 others — Respondents
Court: ---S. 11(4)--Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), S. 19--Revisional jurisdiction--Judicial review--Order passed amenable to revisional jurisdiction either under S. 11(4), Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, or under S. 19 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958--Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, held, fell in error in rejecting revision on ground of lack of jurisdiction--Failure to exercise revisional jurisdiction possessed by Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner rendered his order to be removed through judicial review.--Jurisdiction.1966 P T D 643
VISHWANATH GOPAL OIL MILL Versus S. C. PRASHAR,
Court: Bombay (India)2012 P T D (Trib
Messrs R.J. COTTON WASTE FACTORY, FAISALABAD Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (ZONE-III), (R.T.O.), FAISALABAD
Court: Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan2002 P T D (Trib
N/A
Court: Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate TribunalP L D 2017 Islamabad 19
MUHAMMAD MAJID — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MANPOWER AND OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT, ISLAMABAD and others — Respondents
Court: High Court