| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1962 SLG 2714 = 1962 SLD 2714 = 1962 PLD 124 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 293 of 1961, decided on 30th November 1961.
Presented By: Shabir Ahmad and Shakirullah, JJ
Raja Sher Afgan Khan v. The West Pakistan Government P L D 1957 Lah. 527 ref. Muhammad Anwar for Petitioner. Mazharul Haq for
Respondent. Date of hearing : 13th November 1961.
Writ Petition No. 293 of 1961, decided on 30th November 1961.
Presented By: Shabir Ahmad and Shakirullah, JJ
Raja Sher Afgan Khan v. The West Pakistan Government P L D 1957 Lah. 527 ref. Muhammad Anwar for Petitioner. Mazharul Haq for
Respondent. Date of hearing : 13th November 1961.
DR. MUHAMMAD ASLAM-Petitioner
VERSUS
THE COLLECTOR AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MONTGOMERY-Respondent
Law:
Section:
(a) Basic Democracies Order (No. 18 of 1959), Art. 25 (7)-- Immunity from Courts of general jurisdiction when can be claimed-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170. Where In a writ petition against an order under Article 25 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959 it was urged that in view of what is contained in sub-clause (7) of Article 25 of the Order no writ could issue: Held, that before sub-clause (7) of Article 25 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, can be Invoked, it has to be estab lished that the order for which immunity Is claimed was justified by any provision of Article 25 of the Order. The powers of Tribunals of general jurisdiction, which the ordinary Courts of a country are, to determine the validity or otherwise of orders passed by a Tribunal of special jurisdiction cannot be presumed to have been taken away if the orders for which immunity from scrutiny Is claimed do not fall within the ambit of the provision of law which is relied upon for the assertion that the jurisdiction had been taken away, unless the words of the law are clearly to the effect that the orders of the special Tribunal are sacrosanct, as far as Courts are con cerned, even though the orders may amount to exercise of jurisdiction, that did not exist. If a Tribunal of special jurisdiction gives a finding of fact which has some evidence, however meager, to support it, the powers of Courts of general jurisdiction to declare that finding to be incorrect would not exist. If, however, the Tribunal acts either with an ulterior motive or bases its order on a ground which would not justify the passing of the order, the powers of the Tribunals of general jurisdiction to declare the order to be invalid would, In the absence of clear words to the contrary, continue to exist. However, It should not be supposed that a Tribunal of general jurisdiction would be in a position to substitute its own findings for the findings given by the Tribunal of special jurisdiction. If occasion arises for the Tribunal of general jurisdiction to issue a direction with regard to an order passed by a Tribunal of special jurisdiction, the order of the former Tribunal must confine itself…