Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 252 2020 SLD 252 2020 CLD 134
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petition No. 3347-P of 2017, decision Dated: 19-03-2019. Hearing Dated: 19-02-2019.
MUSARRAT HILALI, JUSTICE ABDUL SHAKOOR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: in person.
Respondent(s) by: Barrister Adam Hassan Malik Nos. 1 and 2.

AKBAR KHAN

VS

SAID GUL AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199,199(1)(ii)(b),260

Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 260 & 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---"Holder of public office"---Directors of Public Limited Company---Scope---Question before the High Court was whether for purpose of jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution, could a Director of a Public Limited Company be considered a "holder of public office"---Held, that although the term "public office" had not been defined under Art. 260 of the Constitution, it generally referred to any person working in the Public Sector, whether in Parliamentary Government or Municipal institutions, and could be an elected official or person appointed to work in public administration---Director of a Public Limited Company had nothing to do with the Federal, Provincial or Local Governments and therefore was not amenable to Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: ABDUL SHAKOOR, J.--- Akbar Khan, petitioner herein, through the instant constitutional petitioner under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, is seeking an order requiring the respondent No.1 to show under what authority of law he claims to hold the office of Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of the Messrs Pak-Qatar Takaful Limited. 2. Petitioner, in this petition, in essence is claiming that respondent No.1 being intermediate was having no right to be appointed as Managing Director/CEO of respondent No.2 under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 thus putting the hard earned money of public at risk which they have deposited and depositing under Insurance Policies with respondent No.2 as risk coverage of their lives and properties. Petitioner with the view to save the money of public from being vested on account of the decisions of ineligible person (respondent No.1), lodged a complaint with respondent No.3 for his removal but of no avail, hence, this petition. 3. This Court, in view of the averments of the petition, called comments from respondents Nos.1 and 2 and 3 which they furnished separately. In their comments, they have denied the allegations of petitioner being baseless and having no legs to stand upon and further stated that the instant…
🔒
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