Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section:

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962),   Arts. 225 & 250-Validity, legality and propriety of everything done and of every action proceeding taken in connection with administration of Martial Law, by any Martial Law Authority during Martial Law period-Com pletely and finally protected and immune from attack in any Court of law-Martial Law Regulation No. 88 of 1961 [as: amended by Martial Law Regulation No. 93 of 1961]-President's Order No. 26 of 1962, S. 7.   (b) Writ-   Decision once given in exercise of writ jurisdiction-Cannot be reviewed-Enabling provisions of O. XLVII, r. 1, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-Applicable only to extent limited to exact words of O. XLVII, r. 1, Civil Procedure Code.   In re: Prahlad Krishna Kurne A I R 1951 Bom. 25; Hajee Suleman v. Custodian Evacuee Property A I R 1955 Madhya Bharat 108; Rukan Din and others v. Hafiz-ud-Din and another P L D 1962 Lah. 161 and Abdul Jabbar v. Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs. Review Application No. 15 of 1959 (Quetta) (unreported) considered.   Dr. Nasim Hassan Shah with Ch. Khalilur Rahman for Petitioners.   Malik Muhammad Akram assisted by Sh. Muhammad Iqbal   Hussain and Gut Muhammad Butt for Respondents.   A. R. Sheikh and Ch. Muhammad Shafi for Respondent No. 2.   Dates of hearing: 8th and 9th April 1963.     ORDER   MANZOOR QADIR, C. J.-While dealing with Writ Petitions Nos. 839 of 1962, 582 of 1962, 609 of 1962, 610 of 1962, 747 of 1962, 888 of 1962, 813 of 1962, 956 of 1962, 15 of 1963, 47 of 1963, 585 of 1962, 957 of 1962, 1113 of 1962, 9 of 1963 and 10 of 1963 in Division Bench, a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondents that the validity, legality and propriety of every thing done and of every action or proceeding taken by a Border Allotment Committee during the Martial Law period was clothed with finality and that that finality was protected by Article 250 of the Constitution and that it could not be undone under Article 98 of the Constitution. Since another Division Bench had already taken a view which was contrary to this proposition a Full Bench was constituted to consider this…