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

Goods Governance

Goods Governance legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2010 SCMR 511 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Public functionaries, duties ofScope

Pakistan is founded on the basis of religion of Islam, efforts should be made to bring out an egalitarian society based on Islamic concept of fair play and social justice

Public functionaries are expected to act fairly and justly in manner which should not give to any one any cause of complaint on account of discriminatory treatment or otherwise.

2010 SCMR 431 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Executive/Legislative are expected to act like a mother, to provide protection to deprived child/class of persons, rather than to those who enjoy power and privileges

Most of the time those to whom power has been entrusted by common man, use the same to provide more privilege to elite without any just classification.

2007 PLD 323 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Society in transition witnesses two .parallel strains i.e. a process of institutional erosion and attempt by reformers/idealists to build institutions

Effort should be to strengthen the latter, because institutions play a vital role in civilizing people and in their onward march towards socio-economic and political progress

In the comity of nations the credibility and progress of a country is measured by the strength of its institutions

Nation which fails to respect the institutions falls in grace, decays, splits and is condemned in history

Society bereft of stable institutions would be at odds with itself.

2007 CLC 107 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Individual interest must give way to interest of community or a part thereof and a part of community must give way to the interest of entire community or public at large.

2005 SCMR 85 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Change of administrationNon-endorsing of action of previous administrationIllegal appointments withdrawn by new administrationEffectGovernment is perpetual entityHeads may change but government does not

Action once taken by one administration is to be followed by the changed administration more particularly when it involves employment of people

Thousands of people are rendered jobless and tens of thousands of families are rendered destitute simply because some subsequent administration did not endorse action of previous administration

People in present times are rendered jobless in order to accommodate certain other people of their own choice as such the same is tantamount to creating false sense of achieving employment levels

Action is required to be taken against those who are guilty of making illegal appointments.

2005 SCMR 1 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Public healthPrinciple

Question of public health cannot be left at the discretion of persons who, for their vested interest, can go to any extent.

2005 PTD 172 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Public healthPrinciple

Question of public health cannot be left at the discretion of persons who, for their vested interest, can go to any extent.

2005 PLC(CS) 1056 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Change of administrationNon-endorsing of action of previous administrationIllegal appointments withdrawn by new administrationEffectGovernment is perpetual entityHeads may change but Government does not

Action once taken by one administration is to be followed by the changed administration more particularly when it involves employment of people

Thousands of people are rendered jobless and tens of thousands of families are rendered destitute simply because some subsequent administration did not endorse action of previous administration

People in present times are rendered jobless in order to accommodate certain other people of their own choice as such the same is tantamount to creating false sense of achieving employment levels

Action is required to be taken against those who are guilty of making illegal appointments.

2005 PLD 181 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Directive issued by Chief MinisterNon-complianceEffectIf an order is not to be enforced or implemented, then why should such order be issued

Issuance of such order where it creates hopes and expectations, it results in total frustration and disappointment when it is not implemented and yields no benefits or fruits

High Court noted that in several cases, the orders/directives issued by Chief Minister Secretariat are not respected or implemented by the governmental functionaries

Perhaps such happens as the issuance of such orders or directives is considered by the subordinates a routine affair and exercise

Non-compliance of such directives and orders mocks the Authority passing such orders

Such non-compliance militates even against the declared, proclaimed and projected policy of good governance

High Court advised that before issuing such orders and directives the matter should be seriously dealt with, pondered and on due consideration only appropriate order or directive should be issued and it should then be seen that the same was carried out, honoured and implemented

Routine issuance of directives, which may be turned down by the subordinates, adversely reflects upon the authority of the Government itself.

2005 PLC(CS) 1300 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Pleasure of rulersScopeIslamic Republic of Pakistan and the nation is governed by the Constitution and the laws

Absolute power and authority cannot be arrogated to or exercised by any State functionary.

2005 PLC(CS) 731 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Rule of law and justiceImplementationPrinciples

To maintain a practical and humane system of statutory law, at occasions, meeting of certain strict requirements have many a times been excused, overlooked or condoned

To enforce a law in its letter often produces a manifest injustice

Prime object of all systems where rule of law and justice is to prevail, is to ensure justice based on fairness, reasonableness and justness, without any taint.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Goods Governance", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/41009

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Goods Governance"

PLD 2011
N/A

P L D 2011 Lahore 563

SAMINA KANWAL-Appellant Versus DIRECTOR PUNJAB FORESTRY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, FAISALABAD — Respondent

Court: High Court
PLD 1977
Constitutional Petitions Nos. 619 to 626 of 1973, decided on 27th February 1976.

P L D 1977 Karachi 226

Mst. SAEEDA BEGUM AHD 7 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CENTRAL BOARD of REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER‑Respondents

Court:
PLC(CS) 2011
N/A

2011 P L C (C

SAMINA KANWAL Versus DIRECTOR PUNJAB FORESTRY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, FAISALABAD

Court: Lahore High Court
PLD 2006
2006-March-31

P L D 2006 Lahore 437

CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES UNION — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY COOPERATIVES, PUNJAB, LAHORE — Respondent

Court: High Court
CLCN 2019
2019-January-11

2019 C L C Note 35

IMTIAZ HUSSAIN RAJA and 24 others — Petitioners Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFARABAD through Chief Secretary and 8 others — Respondents

Court: High Court (AJ&K)
YLR 2015
Writ Petition No.815-A of 2013, decided on 1st October, 2014.

2015 Y L R 719

IRFAN KHAN BANGISH — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT — Respondent

Court: Peshawar
PLD 2005
Writ Petition No. 10362 of 2004, decided on 20th December, 2004.

P L D 2005 Lahore 181

Syeda TASNEEM RIFFAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PRINCIPAL SECRETARY and others‑‑‑Respondents

Court:
PLC(CS) 2023
Tariq Aziz-ud-Din and others: in re: Human Rights Cases Nos.8340, 9504-G, 13936-G, 13635-P and 14306-G to 143309-G of 2009, decided on 28th April, 2010, 2010 SCMR 1301 and Human Rights Case No. 11827-S of 2018, decided on 3rd September, 2018: In the matter regarding Selling of National Assets including PIA at Throwaway Price 2019 SCMR 1952 rel.

2023 P L C (C

NISAR SARWAR Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Energy Power Division), Islamabad and others

Court: Lahore High Court
PLC(CS) 2011
Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-368 of 2007, D-184 and D-823 of 2009, decided on 22nd October, 2010.

2011 P L C (C

MUJEEB AHMED and others Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary to Government of Sindh and others

Court: Sindh High Court
PLC(CS) 2013
Writ Petition No.2744 of 2011, decided on 29th February, 2012.

2013 P L C (C

NAZAR ASLAM Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and 6 others

Court: Islamabad High Court