| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 5264 = 1966 SLD 5264 = 1966 PLD 473 |
West Pakistan Lahore
Writ Petition No. 1727/R of 1962, decided on 2nd February 1966.
Presented By: S. Anwarul Haq, J
Sh. Khurshid Ahmad for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent No. 1. Karam Elahi Chauhan (not appeared on 12-10-1965) for
Respondent No. 2.
Writ Petition No. 1727/R of 1962, decided on 2nd February 1966.
Presented By: S. Anwarul Haq, J
Sh. Khurshid Ahmad for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent No. 1. Karam Elahi Chauhan (not appeared on 12-10-1965) for
Respondent No. 2.
Sheikh MUHAMMAD AMIN---Petitioner
VERSUS
CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962
Section: 98
Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)
Section: 10(b)
Law: General Clauses Act (X of 1897)
Section: 6
Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-Jurisdiction, question of-Averment that question not raised before lower tribunal and so could not be raised for first time in writ jurisdiction Affidavit in reply refuting averment Relied upon. Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore P L D 1964 S C 829 ref. Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10 (b) read with Displaced Persons (Com pensation and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Ordinance (II of 1962), S. 2-Proceedings initiated under Central Government Notification No. S. R. O. 824 (K)/61 dated 1-9-61-Saved by S. 6, General Clauses Act, 1897 and could legally continue even after amendment of S. 10, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958-General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 6. The Central Government Notification No. S. R. O. 824 (K)/61 dated 1-9-61 has, no doubt, ceased to have any legal sanction after the amendment of section 10 (b) of the Displaced Persons Com pensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 by the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1962 but the proceedings initiated against a person before amendment of section 10 (b) of the Act could by virtue of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 be continued even after its amendment. The mere omission of a saving clause in the amending Ordinance or the fact that the new provision is radically different from the old, does not necessarily lead to the inference that the Legislature intended to express an intention to the effect that pending proceedings shall not survive in terms of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Muhammad Siddiq v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner P L D 1965 S C 123 distinguished. Messrs Nawa-i-Waqat Publications Ltd. v. Messrs Lakshmi Insurance Company P L D 1959 Lah. 980 ref. Interpretation of statutes-Repeal followed by re-enact ment-Rights and liabilities accrued under repealed legislation do not automatically disappear in absence of provision to contrary either express or implied. General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 6-Repeal followed by…