Case Details

Citation(s)
1960 SLG 331 1960 SLD 331 1960 PLD 31
Dacca High Court
Writ Petition No. 145 of 1957, decision dated: 04-01-1958.
AKBAR, JUSTICE MURSHED, JUSTICE
Asrarul Hossain, Baarul Hyder Chowdhury and B. C. Panday for Petitioner. B. A. Siddiky, Advocate General, and A. Hye Chowdhury for
Respondents.

MD. NUR HUSSAIN

VS

PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170 Questions of fact Cannot be legitimately gone into in writ proceedings. Questions of fact cannot be legitimately gone into in a petition under Article 170 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1956). Proceedings in a petition under Article 170 of the Constitution are by their very nature of a summary character. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the party applying for a writ to show that he has a clear legal right, and that the right to its performance is so clear as not to admit of a reasonable doubt or controversy. Seriously disputed questions of fact cannot be satisfactorily determined in this summary proceeding where the only evidence relied upon consists of pleadings of the parties, their affidavits and certain documents produced by them. The question that there was no proper service of notice in the requisition proceedings is not capable of being established in a writ proceeding. (b) East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act (XIII of 1948), S. 3 Notice not specifying particular purpose for which property was being requisitioned Omission not fatal so long as public purpose is established to the satisfaction of Court. In order to make an order of requisition valid, it is not necessary to set out the purpose of the requisition in a notice under, the East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948. A purpose and a public purpose must undoubtedly be made out to the satisfaction of the Court, if the order is to be upheld as valid, but if such a purpose is proved to the satisfaction of the Court in some other way, the order cannot be impugned as invalid for the mere reason that the purpose was not specified in it. Satya Narayan Nathani v. 'State of West Bengal and another A I R 1957 Cal. 310 (313) and State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji A I R 1955 S C 41 (45) rel. Radharaman Das and another v. The State of West Bengal and others 91 C L J 347 (352) and State of Bombay v. Mohanlal Kapur A I R 1951 Bom. 404 ref. (c) East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act (XIII of 1948) Intra vires of the powers of Provincial Legislature. (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170 Person invoking a special…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492