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

Mandamus

Mandamus legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2019 MLD 1955 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Art.199MandamusDirection to authoritiesScope

Court can direct the authorities to do what the mandate of law demands to do, being ultimate guardians of rights of individuals, when it comes to the lives and safety of the general public.

1973 PLD 188 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 98-Writ-Mandamus, writ of-Can issue if statutory duty involved or any legal right enforced or performance of public duty claimed.

1970 PLD 508 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 98 read with Bengal Municipal Act (XV of 1932), S. 66 and Municipal Administration Ordinance (X of 1960), Ss. 29 & 130-Writ-Mandamus

Master and servant

Tenure of service of employees of Municipal Committee-Purely of contractual nature liable to be controlled by rule of master and servant-Specific performance of such contract of sere ice through Court-Not permissible -Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 21 (a) & (b).

1970 PLD 485 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
Art. 98Writ-Mandamus-District Council EmployeeNot Government servant-Writ of mandamus for restoration to office in District Council

Does not lie.

1968 PLD 78 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Writ - Mandamus - Order made under Act-May be quashed by Court if satisfied that such order was not within powers of Actor that interests of petitioner were substantially prejudiced by non-compliance of any of its requirements-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 1 70-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98. It is well settled that if any person aggrieved by an order made under the Act desires to question the validity thereof on the ground that it is not within the powers of the Act or that any requirement of the Act has not been complied with, the Court may if satisfied that the order is not within the powers of the Act or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by any requirement of the Act not having been complied with quash the order.

1966 PLD 445 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 98 & 177-WritMandamus-Lies for restoration to office or franchise only if such office or franchise be of "public nature"-Wrongful dismissal of Co-operative Bank employee-Writ not proper remedy Co-operative Societies Act (11 of 1912)-Civil Services Rules (Punjab), Vol. II, rr.-14-13.

1965 PLD 11 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 98 (2) (a) (ii) -Writ-Certiorari-Mandamus-Not available if alternative remedy, provided in Statute, not availed of.

1964 PLD 438 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
-Mandamus

Court exercising jurisdiction, to concern itself primarily with question whether impugned order made in good faith and in exercise of powers lawfully vested in authority concerned-Constitution of Pakistan, 1962, Art. 98.

1964 PLD 522 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Mandamus Pendency or filing of suit for adjudication of same issues not established-Petition for mandamus, held, competent - Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170.

1964 PTD 739 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 98 (2) (a) (ii)Writ-Certiorari-Mandamus-Not available if alternative remedy provided in Statute not availed of.

1964 PLD 142 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Writ-Mandamus-Condition that it must be preceded by demand of justice and refusal thereof-Not inflexible.

1963 PLD 233 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Mandamus Writ-Mandamus

Writ of discretion-Not granted as of right or issued as matter of course.

1963 PLD 203 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Mandamus Writ-Mandamus

When issued-Existence of legal right in petitioner to get performance from respondent of a legal duty Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art., 170.

1963 PLD 741 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Mandamus - "Demand for justice"-Petitioner normally not entitled to obtain writ if he fails -to disclose demand for justice and its refusal, except where such demand is futile Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98.

1963 PLD 736 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

-Mandamus-Alternative discretionary remedy by way of revision-Failure to avail of such remedy no ground for refusing mandamus-Each case depends on its peculiar circumstances-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98.

1962 PLC 911 Judicial Precedent

Writ - Mandamus - Writ of "discretion" - Laches -Writ applied for 12 years after cause far complaint arose Refused-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170.

1962 PLD 126 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Writ-Mandamus-Affidavit in support of petition must be sworn by all petitioners or aggrieved persons-Petition in respect of persons not so swearing rejected in limine-High Court Rules and Orders (Dacca).

1959 PLD 507 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Mandamus

Right to have matter decided by public servant-Right to have excluded from consideration, while taking decision, matters illegal-Rights may be enforced by application for writ of mandamus.

1956 PLD 354 SINDH-CHIEF-COURT Judicial Precedent

Mandamus Mandamus-Issue of-Restoration to office-Office must be public. Mandamus will lie to compel restoration to office but it is necessary that the office must be public office. The post of a 'Technical Assistant' is not a public office.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Mandamus", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/2643

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Mandamus"

PLD 1959
Writ Petition No. 20 of 1958, decided on 14th July 1959.

P L D 1959 (W

ABDUL MANAN KHALIFA‑Petitioner Versus ENGINEER‑IN‑CHIEF G. H. Q. RAWALPINDI PAKISTAN

Court:
CLC 1998
Writ Petition No. 1683 of 1997, decided on 21st April, 1998.

1998 C L C 1847

MUZAMAL KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KHAN FARAZ and others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Peshawar
PLD 2023
2022-December-2

P L D 2023 Islamabad 184

MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN SWATI — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Interior and 4 others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 1960
Writ Petition No. 127 of 1958, decided on 15th October 1959.

P L D 1960 (W

NASEEM AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, HOME DIVISION and another‑Respondents

Court: (a) Government Servant‑Arrears of salary‑Claim depends upon bounty of Crown: The State of Pakistan v. Mehrajuddin etc. P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 147 rel,
PLD 1960
Writ Petition No. 264 of 1958, decided on 2nd November 1959

P L D 1960 (W

Sardar MUHAMMAD BAKHTIYAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN and another — Respondents

Court: In England, however, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued against the Crown.
CLC 1997
Writ Petition No.736 of 1996, decided on 25th August, 1996,

1997 C L C 1288

PREMIER PAPER MILLS LTD. ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus N.‑W.F.P. TEXTBOOK BOARD‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Peshawar
PLD 1962
Civil Appeal No. 18 of 196,, decided on 27th November, 1961.

P L D 1962 Supreme Court 28

KARACHI‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD A. HAYAT‑Respondent

Court: (a) Writ‑---Mandamus or other writ‑Lies against Government Analogy from English law that mandamus does not lie against Crown, inapt‑Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170 ; Dicey's Law of the Constitution p. 527 of 1950 Edn. ; Phillip's Constitutional Law p. 447, 1957 Edn. ; Wade's Constitutional Law p. 317, 1957 Edn. ; Queen v. The Secretary of State for War (1891) 2 Q B 326 ; Rex v. Minister of Health (1930) 2 K B 98 ;Secretary of State v. Oberion (1923) A C 603 and Eshugbayi Eleko v. Officer Administering the Government of Nigeria and another A I R 1931 P C 248 ref..
CLC 1984
Constitutional Petition No. D‑331 of 1981, decided on 7th November, 1983.

1984 C L C 503

HINDU GENERAL PANCHAYAT (RBGD.)‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PROVINCE OF SIND AND 21 OTHERS‑Respondents

Court: Karachi
PLC(CS) 1998
Writ Petition No. 1529 of 1997, decided on 23rd September, 1997.

1998 P L C (C

MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN and others Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.

Court: Peshawar High Court
PLD 1959
Civil Appeals Nos. 36, 65 and 77 of 1958, decided on 20th January 1959.

P L D 1959 Supreme Court (Pak

THE STATE OF PAKISTAN and another‑Appellants Versus MEHRAJUDDIN‑Respondent

Court: