Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 3916 2016 SLD 3916 2016 YLR 2163
High Court (AJ&K)
Writ Petition No. 303 of 2016, decided on 31st March, 2016.
GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, CHIEF, JUSTICE, M. TABBASUM AFTAB ALVI, JUSTICE, AZHAR SALEEM BABAR, JUSTICE AND MUHAMMAD SHERAZ KIANI, JUSTICE
Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan for Petitioners. Barrister Humayun Nawaz Khan and Ch. Shoukat Aziz, A.A.G. for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR AND 183 others

VS

. AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, NEW CIVIL SECRETARIAT, MUZAFARABAD AND 7 others

Law:

Section:

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)----- -----S. 44-----Memorandum No. Admin/ CS-2(6)/2015, dated 30.11.2015-----Notification No. Secretariat/E & SE/ 24500-24510/ 2015, dated 26.11.2015-----Notification No. SHE/1st/7911-30/2015, dated 26.11.2015-----Writ petition----- Maintainability-----'Education Package', validity of-----Locus standi, absence of-----'Aggrieved person'-----Definition-----Public interest litigation/pro bono publico-----Scope-----Question before the High Court was whether the petitioners had the locus standi to challenge the cabinet decision as well as notifications issued in pursuance thereof for upgradition of educational institutions-----'Aggrieved person' was although not to necessarily qualify that right in strict sense yet the person must have, at least, shown that he had some interest that the authorities should have acted in accordance with law-----In presence of well-organized and fully functional department, no outsider or stranger had the locus standi to approach the Court for protection of the department's interests-----Court could not assume the function of policy making or determine the priority of the various development projects in the State, as the same was in the exclusive domain of the Executive/Government-----Court was to refrain from interfering with the policies launched by the public authorities for the smooth working of the public institutions, until and unless the same were proved to have been repugnant to the Fundamental Rights of the citizens of the State-----Court had to guard against frivolous petition, in the garb of public interest litigation-----Matters were brought before the Court which were neither of public importance nor relatable to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights or public duty-----Public interest litigation was a weapon which had to be used with great care and circumspection and the Judiciary had to be extremely careful to see behind the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private malice, vested interest, and/or publicity seeking was not lurking-----High Court, however, ordered the authorities that in future, for the purpose of up-gradation of institutions in…
🔒
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