| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1973 SLG 3186 = 1973 SLD 3186 = 1973 PLD 817 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 1193 of 1973, decided on 22nd June 1973.
Presented By: Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, C. J. and Muhammad Akram, J
Sh. Saeed Akhtar and Mian Manzar Bashir for Petitioner.
Writ Petition No. 1193 of 1973, decided on 22nd June 1973.
Presented By: Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, C. J. and Muhammad Akram, J
Sh. Saeed Akhtar and Mian Manzar Bashir for Petitioner.
Hakim MUHAMMAD ANWAR BABRI -Petitioner
VERSUS
PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIR AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan (1972), Art. 201-Judicial power under, does not extend to determination of abstract questions-Peti tioner seeking writ of prohibition restraining Central Government from taking any final decision in regard to question of recognition of "Bengladesh" as sovereign State (as it would amount to cession of territory of Pakistan) and further prohibiting National Assembly of Pakistan from discussing question whether or not so called "Bangladesh" be recognised-Held, Art. 201 does not empower Courts to grant such declaration; further, Courts not competent to arrest by writ, proceedings of Legislature which is sovereign and supreme within sphere of its powers. A writ of prohibition was prayed restraining the Central Government from taking any action to recognize the so called "Bangladesh". It was further prayed that the National Assembly of Pakistan should be prohibited by means of writ from discussing in the House the question whether or not the so-called "Bangladesh" be recognised. Held: No report shows that the Government of Pakistan has itself taken a final decision to recognise "Bangladesh" as a sovereign State. On the other hand, all these reports suggest that the Government of Pakistan is contemplating to take the matter to the National Assembly of Pakistan. In these circumstances, since there is no order of the Central Government of Pakistan recognising "Bangladesh" no writ can issue against the Central Government, at this stage. Judicial review is premature where the Administrative intention though expressed but has not yet come to fruition. This rule is founded upon the principle that an administrative authority which has been entrusted with the determination of administ rative or political questions should be free to dispose them of without interference from the Courts until soma legal or constitu tional question presents itself for judicial determination. Even if the administrative authority commits an error at an intermediate stage, there is no reason to presume that it will not correct itself before the proceedings are completed. Counsel contended that "Bangladesh"…