| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2000 SLG 1528 2000 SLD 1528 2000 PLD 84 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Constitutional Petition No.6 of 1996, decision dated: 26-10-1999. (Petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan)
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
Petitioner in person. Raja A. Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record (absent)
Constitutional Petition No.6 of 1996, decision dated: 26-10-1999. (Petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan)
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
Petitioner in person. Raja A. Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record (absent)
ALJEHAD TRUSTthrough Raeesul Mujahidin HabibulWahabulKhairI
VS
THE PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)------Art. 184(3)---Constitutional petition before Supreme Court under Art. 184(3) of Constitution ---Maintainability---Direct petition under Art.184(3) of the Constitution is maintainable if the Supreme Court considers. that a question ok public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chap. 1 of Part II of the Constitution is involved---If the petitioner succeeds in establishing breach of any of the Fundamental Rights involving a question of "public importance", he is entitled to the appropriate relief. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)------Art. 184(3)---Constitutional petition before Supreme Court under Art. 1840) of the Constitution---Maintainability---Allegations levelled in the petition that religious elements in the army. were being victimized, were too vague and had been expressed in general terms not supported by any cogent material on record and even during the course of arguments, petitioner had failed to state with particularity the relief sought by him with reference to violation of any fraction of the Fundamental Rights---Pleas raised in the petition being of academic nature based on vague, bald and general allegations, no writ could be issued on the basis thereof. In the present case the allegations levelled in the petition that religious elements in the Army were being victimized were too vague and had been expressed in general terms not supported by any cogent material on record. It is true, that while considering the question of cause of action, the Court should apply its 'Mind to the facts given in the petition, and even if there is any vagueness about the pleadings, the party can take appropriate steps with permission of the Court to remove the vagueness. This fact simpliciter was not enough to reject a plaint or a petition: In .the present case, however, even during the course of arguments, the petitioner had failed to state with particularity the relief sought by him with reference to violation of any fraction of the Fundamental Rights. Pleas raised is the petition were of academic nature based on vague, bald and general allegations, on the basis…
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