| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLG 395 1990 SLD 395 1990 SCMR 189 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
Civil Appeal No. 486 of 1989, decision dated: 10-12-1989
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH,NASIM HASAN SHAH, ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, SHAFIUR RAHMAN,ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA. GHULAM MUJADDIDSAAD SAOOD, JAN,USMAN ALI SHAH, ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH AND NAIMUDDIN, JJ
Syed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Zaki-ud-Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, M. Zahoorul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court, Manzoor Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, M. Akram Shaikh, A
Civil Appeal No. 486 of 1989, decision dated: 10-12-1989
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH,NASIM HASAN SHAH, ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, SHAFIUR RAHMAN,ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA. GHULAM MUJADDIDSAAD SAOOD, JAN,USMAN ALI SHAH, ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH AND NAIMUDDIN, JJ
Syed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Zaki-ud-Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, M. Zahoorul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court, Manzoor Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, M. Akram Shaikh, A
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTANvsM. D. TAHIR, ADVOCATE and others
Law: Supreme Court Rules, 1980
Section: OXXXIII,R.6
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185
[Constitution of Pakistan (1973)].........Art 185---Supreme Court Rules, 1980, OXXXIII, R.6---Appeal---Leave to appeal was granted on the ground that question raised in the petition was of public importance and related to the interpretation of the Constitution and concerned the function of the Parliamentary Democracy in the country--�Appellant, Federal Government, during the currency of proceedings stated that it will be satisfied, if one para. of the impugned of the High Court, against which exception was taken by it, on the ground that required mandatory notice under OXXVII-A, R.1, C.P.C. was not given to the Attorney-General, before determining the Constitutional question, is excised and appeal is disposed of accordingly---Counsel for one of the respondents stated that he had no objection to the disposal of appeal in the manner requested by the appellant---Other respondent, however, objected to the disposal of the appeal on such a short ground, but he having not filed any appeal against the order of the High Court, it became final as against him and thus his contention had no substance---Supreme Court, therefore, while disposing of the appeal, ordered that offending para. of the High Court be excised with the observation that in all other respects would stand.Per Abdul Kadir Shaikh, J., Contra--Since it is the primary and sacred function of Supreme Court to resolve all constitutional controversies relating to the interpretation of the Constitution, the appeal should be heard and decided on the questions of law of fundamental public importance on which leave to appeal was granted, namely, interpretation of Constitution concerning "the function of the Parliamentary Democracy in the country" so that an authoritative decision of the Supreme Court be rendered, for, if left for decision in the future, the consequences will be awkward, inconvenient and not conducive to proper administration of justice as these would subvert the legitimacy of the very appointments of the Judges themselves. If left undecided, these issues are also bound to cause confusion among the litigants in view of uncertainty with regard to the validity of the s and decisions rendered by the…