Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 83 2014 SLD 83 2014 PLD 367
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-4 of 2011, decided on 17th November, 2013. DATE of hearing: 6th August, 2013
NISAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH AND SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JJ
Muhammad Hashim Bajeer for Petitioners. Ayaz Hussain Tunio for
Respondent. Allah Bachayo Soomro, Addl.A.G. along with Aijaz Ali Bozdar, Mukhtiarkar Taluka Jhando Mari

MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others

VS

EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE) and others

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199(a)(i)(ii),199

(a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199(a)(i) & (ii)---Constitutional petition---Writ of prohibition and certiorari---Distinction---Object, purpose and scope---Constitution itself has vested the High Court with jurisdiction to declare legal status of act done or proceedings taken by such person---Subject to limitations explained by Constitution itself, act done or proceedings taken by such person can well be examined by High Court within the meaning of Art.199 of the Constitution---Writ of prohibition is an order directing an inferior tribunal or authority to refrain from continuing with a proceedings therein, on the ground that proceeding is without or is in excess of jurisdiction or contrary to the laws of land and proceedings may be without jurisdiction if they contravene some enactment or some principle of common law---Writ of prohibition lies on such ground during pending proceedings, while writ of certiorari comes into play when tribunal or authority has passed or done the act---Certiorari and prohibition are based on the same principle but the former can issue before the act is done while the latter is used to vacate the act after it is done. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Additional charge---Scope---Cancellation of grant---Petitioners sought cancellation of grant of land in question made in favour of respondent but District Officer (Revenue) having additional charge of Executive District Officer (Revenue) dismissed the application filed by petitioners---Validity---Mere holding of the office of Executive District Officer (Revenue) by District Officer (Revenue), in no way, could change the legal position that Executive District Officer (Revenue) was the appellate authority of District Officer (Revenue)---Order in question had been passed in the capacity of Executive District Officer (Revenue) though the matter was never pending adjudication before Executive District Officer (Revenue) but was pending before District Officer (Revenue)---Order passed against petitioners was nothing but coram non judice and of no legal consequences---One could competently hold two offices, if law had so permitted, yet the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492