Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 2943 2017 SLD 2943 = 2017 SCMR 2010
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 106-K of 2016, decision date: 22-09-2017,heard on: 19-07-2017.(Against the dated 10.12.2014passed by the High Court of Sindh in Const. P. D-3796 of2012)
MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE, FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE, SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Muhammad Ashraf Tiwana and others v. Pakistan and others 2013 SCMR 1159 ref. Nazar Hussain Dhoon, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
Respondent No. 1 in person. Asif Mansoor Khan, DAG for
Respondents Nos. 2 - 4.

PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY

VS

MRS. ITRAT SAJJAD KHAN AND OTHERS

Law: Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority Order (7 of 1980)

Section: 4

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

(a) Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority Order (President's Order 7 of 1980)--- ----Art. 4---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---"Person" within the meaning of Art. 199 of the Constitution---Scope---Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Society Authority ("Authority")---Statutory body---'Authority' was a statutory body established under the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority Order, 1980, performing some of the functions of the Federation/State and, therefore, a "person" within the meaning of Art. 199(1)(a)(ii) read with Art. 199(5) of the Constitution---Where actions or orders of such statutory bodies were violative of the statute creating those bodies or rules/regulations framed under the statute, the same could be interfered with by the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution. Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority v. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed 2013 SCMR 1707 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Question as to whether the service rules of an 'authority' were statutory so as to challenge their violation in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Test of whether rules/regulations were statutory or otherwise was not solely whether their framing required approval of the Federal Government or not, rather it was the nature and area of efficacy which determined their status---Rules dealing with instructions for internal control or management were treated as non-statutory while those, whose area of efficacy was broader and/or complementary to the parent statute in the matter of crucial importance, were statutory. Shafique Ahmed Khan v. NESCOM through Chairman, Islamabad PLD 2016 SC 377 and Muhammad Zaman and others v. Government of Pakistan 2017 SCMR 571 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Service Rule for the Employees of the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority Karachi, 2008 ("Rules")---Said "Rules" were non-statutory in nature, therefore, their enforcement through constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court was not in consonance with the law. (d) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register