| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 620 2016 SLD 620 2016 PLD 84 |
Peshawar High Court
C.M. No. 868-P of 2015 in W.P. No. 3876-P of 2014, decided on 23rd July, 2015.
YAHYA AFRIDI AND IRSHAD QAISER, JJ
Kifayatullah Khan, D.A.G. for the Applicant-Federation. Qazi Ghulam Dastagir, for writ-Petitioner. Asad Jan for PESCO.
C.M. No. 868-P of 2015 in W.P. No. 3876-P of 2014, decided on 23rd July, 2015.
YAHYA AFRIDI AND IRSHAD QAISER, JJ
Kifayatullah Khan, D.A.G. for the Applicant-Federation. Qazi Ghulam Dastagir, for writ-Petitioner. Asad Jan for PESCO.
KHAZANA SUGAR MILLS (PVT.) LTD. through General ManageR
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Water and Power, Islamabad and 9 others
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199(4-A) & (4-B)---Constitutional petition---Recovery of levy---Grant of interim relief by High Court---Period of interim relief granted by Constitutional Court---Scope---Recovery of said levy was challenged in different High Courts whereas another High Court had decided the matter, against which leave was granted by the Supreme Court and recovery of levy was suspended---Authorities sought withdrawal of interim relief on the ground that Supreme Court had granted leave against the of the other High Court---Validity---Interim order passed by the constitutional court would have a life of six months provided main constitutional petition was finally decided---Where main constitutional petition was not decided within six months, interim order passed therein would remain in force till its revocation or its merger in the decision of the main constitutional petition---Period for interim order could not be extended---Grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court could not be sole ground for revoking the interim order in a case pending before the High Court---Each case had to be decided on its own merits---If interim order was revoked on the sold ground that Supreme Court had granted leave in the matter decided by the other High Court then it would prejudice the lis before the aggrieved person was properly heard---If interim order remained operative, it would lead to discrimination, abuse of process of law and inconsistency in the orders emanating from the superior courts---Interim order passed by the High Court could not be allowed to remain in field in view of suspension order passed by the Supreme Court---Interim order passed by the High Court was allowed to be withdrawn to bring in parity and consistency amongst all the concerned without any discrimination---Interim order passed by the High Court staying the recovery of levy was vacated and recovery of amount (stayed) would be decided at the time of final decision of main constitutional petition---Applications for withdrawal of interim order were allowed in circumstances. United Sugar Mill's case PLD 1977 SC 397 and Zahur Textile Mills's case PLD 1999 SC 880 rel. ORDER YAHYA…
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