| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 683 2021 SLD 683 2021 PLD 391 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 353-355 of 2010, 130 of 2013, 176 of2018, Civil Petitions Nos. 4750-4751 of 2017, CivilMiscellaneous Application No. 6310 of 2018 in CivilMiscellaneous Application No. 4233 of 2017, Civil PetitionNo. 3039 of 2015, Civil Miscellaneou
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE, FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE, IJAZ UL AHSAN AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Saleem Ullah Ranazai, Advocate Supreme Court along with Appellant in-person ((in C.As. Nos. 353-355 of 2010).Abdul Lateef Afridi, Advocate Supreme Court and Khalid Anwer Afridi, Advocate Supreme Court along with Asif Hamid Qureshi, A
Civil Appeals Nos. 353-355 of 2010, 130 of 2013, 176 of2018, Civil Petitions Nos. 4750-4751 of 2017, CivilMiscellaneous Application No. 6310 of 2018 in CivilMiscellaneous Application No. 4233 of 2017, Civil PetitionNo. 3039 of 2015, Civil Miscellaneou
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE, FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE, IJAZ UL AHSAN AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Saleem Ullah Ranazai, Advocate Supreme Court along with Appellant in-person ((in C.As. Nos. 353-355 of 2010).Abdul Lateef Afridi, Advocate Supreme Court and Khalid Anwer Afridi, Advocate Supreme Court along with Asif Hamid Qureshi, A
GUL TAIZ KHAN MARWATVSTHE REGISTRAR, PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR AND OTHERS
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 176,192(1),199,208
(a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 176, 192(1), 199 208---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---But for test---Scope---Executive, administrative or consultative actions of the Chief Justices or Judges of a High Court---Such actions were not amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution---Superior courts judges did not come under the definition of persons in view of Art.199(5) of the Constitution and therefore writ petitions filed against their executive, administrative or consultative actions were not maintainable---Judges of the superior courts did not act as persona designata while exercising executive, administrative or consultative actions---Framers of the Constitution did not intend that the remedy of a writ be available against a High Court or the Supreme Court. Bare reading of Article 199(5) of the Constitution showed that as a general rule for the purposes of Article 199, the Supreme Court and High Courts had been excluded from the term person, and therefore no writ could be issued by a High Court under Article 199 to the Supreme Court or to itself by any of the said Courts.Framers of the Constitution did not intend that the remedy of a writ be available against a High Court or the Supreme Court. Perusal of Articles 176 and 192(1) of the Constitution made it clear that a High Court and the Supreme Court both comprised of the respective Chief Justices and judges, therefore the argument that there could be no Court without the Chief Justice and Judges was necessarily true. Furthermore, the definitions under the said Articles of the Constitution did not draw any distinction between the judicial orders of a Court and its administrative, executive or consultative orders. Keeping in view Articles 176, 192, 199 and 208 of the Constitution, and upon a harmonious interpretation thereof, no distinction whatsoever had been made between the various functions of the Supreme Court and High Courts in the Constitution and the wording was clear, straightforward and unambiguous. There was no sound basis to the argument that Judges acting in their judicial capacity fell within the definition of a person…
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