Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 2369 2022 SLD 2369 2022 PLC 1246
High Court of Australia
Application No. 150 of 2021, decided on 19th June, 2021.
SADAQAT HUSSAIN RAJA, CJ
Haroon Riaz Mughal for Petitioner-Applicant. A.A.G. for Official
Respondents. Tahir Aziz Khan, Legal Advisor for Election Commission.

ANWAR MEHMOOD

VS

SHAKEEL QADIR, CHIEF SECRETARY AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR and 2 others

Law: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974

Section: 44

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)--- ----Art.44---Writ petition---Writ of prohibition---Removal of civil servant by Election Commission---Scope---Petitioner sought issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the respondents not to cancel his appointment notification but he was removed from service during pendency of the petition---Validity---Election Commission was bound to conduct free, fair and transparent elections---Executive was bound to assist the Election Commission in that regard---Election Commission was an independent authority but its powers did not allow it to encroach the jurisdiction of other organs---Notification whereby petitioner was removed from his office clearly amounted to encroachment in the jurisdiction of the High Court and was also ultra vires the Constitution---High Court observed that since the authorities had already withdrawn the impugned notification, therefore, no further deliberation was required---Writ petition was disposed of accordingly. ORDER SADAQAT HUSSAIN RAJA, CJ.----Through the above titled Writ Petition No.1795/2021 filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, a prohibition is sought to the respondents not to cancel the appointment notification of the petitioner dated 30.09.2020, whereby the petitioner-applicant has been appointed as Director General Mirpur Development Authority, Mirpur Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The learned counsel for the petitioner also moved an application for ad-interim relief. This Court, vide order dated 28.05.2021 issued the status quo order in favour of the petitioner. The aforesaid order was served upon the non-applicants and during pendency of the writ petition, the non-applicants issued a notification in pursuance of direction of the Election Commission, whereby the applicant was removed from his office in presence of status quo order of this Court. The applicant also filed an application for initiating contempt proceedings against the non-applicants and after filing of the aforesaid application, the non-applicants cancelled the impugned notification, whereby the applicant was removed from his office. I have perused the impugned…
🔒
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