Home Maxims & Terms Public interest meaning in Urdu
Word Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Public interest

Public interest legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2004 PLD 482 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
"Public interest"

Meaning.

2001 PLD 426 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Words and PhrasesPublic interest"

Connotation.

2000 PLC(CS) 769 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent
Words and Phrases"Public interest"Connotation

Matter of public or general interest does not mean what is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community has a pecuniary interest, or some interest' by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.

1999 PLD 402 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Words and Phrases Public interest"

Connotation.

1997 PLD 513 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Words and Phrases Term "public interest"

Not possible to lay down any yardstick by which "public interest" could be measured but it could be left to the subjective satisfaction of the Authority concerned.

1989 PLD 554 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
"Public interest"

Phrase "public interest" is art expression of wide import and means "general social welfare or regard for social good and predicating interest of the general public in matters where regard for the social good is of the first moment".

1989 MLD 2192 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Words and Phrases -"Public interest litigation"

Connotation.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Public interest", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3352

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Public interest"

PLC(CS) 2000
Constitutional Petition- No. 491 of 1999, decided on 30th December, 1999.

2000 P L C (C

NASRULLAH and others Versus PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and others

Court: Quetta High Court
PLD 2017
N/A

P L D 2017 Lahore 597

Mian SHABIR ASMAIL — Petitioner Versus CHIEF MINISTER OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PCRLJ 2026
2025-July-10

2026 P Cr

Sunny Hakim — Petitioner Versus The State and others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
PLD 2017
N/A

P L D 2017 Lahore 709

Messrs LEO COMMUNICATION (PVT.) LTD. and others — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PLC(CS) 2007
Civil Appeal No.272 of 2005, decided on 22nd November, 2005.

2007 P L C (C

ATTA RABBANI Versus SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
SCMR 2006
Civil Appeal No.272 of 2005, decided on 22nd November, 2005.

2006 S C M R 978

ATTARABBANI — Appellant Versus SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB,

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
SCMR 1975
What is against public interest has not been defined in the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 and has, therefore, to be decided on general principles. This does not mean that the object must be one which would advance a public purpose but all that is required is that it should not he pre judicial to or harmful to the public interest The question was to be considered in this light. It is quite possible to agree that the sale to a committee entrust ed with the management of Trust properties under a scheme which contem plates the expenditure of its income for pi7rpmeq of a charitable, religious or educational nature would be more beneficial and more in the public interest than the sale to private parties who would be interested, merely In making personal profit or gain out of the transaction. There is of course, nothing on the record to show that the appellants were going to spend the Income derived from the shops or structures to be constructed by them for the purposes of the mosque or the clinic therein already set up or for any other religious or charitable purpose, The contention that the rehabilitation of displaced persons would not necessarily be against public interest is, no doubt, correct but if the Municipal Corporation wav to derive greater profit by selling the plot to some other party on better terms, it could equally well be said that the sale to the appellants would be against public interest from the point of view of the Municipal Committee. The loss to the revenues of the Committee would be against public interest. It is not a question of rehabilitation at all but a question of selling a very valuable plot of land to some displaced persons who propose to acquire is one payment of Rs. 5,25,000 for purposes of their individual gain or profit. This goes far beyond rehabilitation and, therefore, is not any public purpose, The acquisition of property to enrich any class or section of the public; cannot be a public purpose. A public purpose, as pointed out by Privy Council, in tire case of Hamabai Framjee Petit v. Secretary of State for India 42 I A 44 means a purpose that is in some way or the other for the benefit of the public at large or a purpose "in which the general interest of the community, as opposed to the particular interest of individuals, is directly concerned".

1975 S C M R 359

Haif HASHMATULLAH AND OTHERS — Appellants Versus KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS

Court: High Court
SCMR 2015
Civil Appeal No. 1434 of 2014, decided on 25th February, 2015.

2015 S C M R 851

MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE KHAN SAWATI — Appellant Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Water and Power, Islamabad and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLC(CS) 1981
Second Appeal No. 141 of 1971, decided on 31st May, 1980.

1981 P L C (C

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus PROVINCE OF SIND AND 2 OTHHRS

Court: Karachi
PLC(CS) 1978
Appeal No. 9 of 1976, decided on 29th December, 1977.

1978 P L C [C

Miss SALEEMA HAMID ALI Versus PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, EDUCATION

Court: 1978 P L C C. S. T 84