Case Details

Citation(s)
1974 SLG 3031 = 1974 SLD 3031 = 1974 PLC 125
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Constitutional Petition No. 306 of 1973, decided on 4th December 1973.
Presented By: Tufail All A. Rahman, C. J. and Abdul Hafeez Memon, J
New Kissan Transport Company v. Member, Board of Revenue P L D 1968 Lah 748 and 1968 S C M R 1307 ref. Munnawar Abbas for Petitioner. F. A. Z. Vellani for
Respondent.

Syed ZAHIR HASSAN RIZVI-Petitioner

VERSUS

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents

Law: Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1961

Section: 13(1)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

(a) Agricultural Development Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1961 S.13(1)-Termination of service-Writ not appropriate remedy Constitution of Pakistan (19721, Art. 201-Constitutiotr of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-[Muhammad Ashraf Pervez v. The Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan P L D 1973 Lah 425 dissented from]. A writ is not the appropriate remedy against an order of dismissal or termination of services, except in the case of persons whose terms and conditions of service are guaranteed by the Constitution. Muhammad Ashraf Pervez v. The Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan P L D 1973 Lah 425 dissented from. University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmed P L D 1965 S C 90; Deputy Managing Director, National Bank of Pakistan v. Attaul Haq, P L D 1965 S C 201; In re: Pakistan International Airlines Corporation P L D 1971 Lah. 478; Shahid Khalil v. The Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Writ Petition No. 403 A 1963; 1971 S C M R 568; The Lahore Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Saifullah Shah P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 210; Chairman, West Pakistan Development Corporation v. Rustam Ali P L D 1966 S C 848; Asghar Hussain v. The Election Commission, Pakistan P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 387 and Abdul Razzak Malik v The Water and Power Development Authority P L D 1973 Lah. 188 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1972) Art. 201 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 199---- Delay or laches on part of petitioner-Disentitle him to discretionary relief in exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, unless delay can be reasonably explained-Petitioner's suit dismissed-Petitioner failing to file appeal or any other proceeding but after lapse of five years invoking writ jurisdiction-Petition, held, merited dismissal on sole ground of laches. Dates of hearing: 14th and 15th November 1973.                                                                                                        …
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register