Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 1842 1993 SLD 1842 1993 CLC 1006
Supreme Court (AJ&K)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN AND BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, JJ
Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate for Appellant. Ch. FazaleHussain, Advocate for
Respondent

AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J&K through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad

VS

Brig. (Rtd.) MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN

Law:

Section:

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Courts and Laws Code, 1949--- ----S.24---A-rad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, R.8--­Case in question, was entrusted to Division Bench for disposal---Interim order under appeal was passed by one of the Judges constituting Division Bench--­Validity---When the Chief Justice had entrusted a case to a Division Bench, the powers vested in the High Court by or under any law would be exercisable by that Bench and not by a member constituting that Bench alone---Interim order passed by a Single Judge was thus, not sustainable. According to scheme of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, one category of cases are to be heard by a Single Judge while cases falling in another category have to be heard by a Division Bench but all such Benches must be constituted by the Chief Justice. Chief Justice may direct that a case which can be heard by a Judge sitting alone shall be heard by two or more Judges. The effect of these provisions is that when the Chief Justice had entrusted a case to a Bench the powers vested in the High Court by or under any law would be exercisable by that Bench. It necessarily follows that only the specified Bench can exercise that power and none else. In the present case the Bench consisting of the two Judges was seized of the appeal filed by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government It was open to the Chief Justice to make an order that the application moved by respondent for interim relief would be heard by a Single Judge but that was not done. Since the petition was moved in the main appeal the Division Bench alone was competent to pass any order on that petition. There is no question of any technicality. Section 24 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Courts and Laws Code and rule 8 of the High Court Rules confer jurisdiction and, therefore, must be held to be mandatory in nature. Any transgression will render the order passed as coram non judice. Sub. Major Fazal Ellahi v. The State PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 80 and Manager Jammu & Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and others PLD 1975 SC 678 ref. JUDGMENT BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---This is an appeal, by leave of the Court;…
🔒
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