| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2630 2004 SLD 2630 2004 PLD 815 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Original No. 1488-W of 2002 in Writ Petition No. 4243 of 1996, decided on 9th June, 2004
CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J
Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat for Petitioner. Syed Shabber Raza Rizvi, A.G. Punjab and Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl.. A.G. for
Respondent along with Ch. Muhammad Sharif, D.O.R. Kasur with record
Criminal Original No. 1488-W of 2002 in Writ Petition No. 4243 of 1996, decided on 9th June, 2004
CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J
Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat for Petitioner. Syed Shabber Raza Rizvi, A.G. Punjab and Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl.. A.G. for
Respondent along with Ch. Muhammad Sharif, D.O.R. Kasur with record
ABDUR REHMAN SHAUKAT
VS
Sardar MUHAMMAD AKRAM JAVED, DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), KASUR
Law:
Section:
(a) Administration of justice------- Nobody is to be penalized by the, inaction of the functionaries. Ahmad Latif Qureshi v. Controller of Examination Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore PLD 1994 Lah. 3 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Arts. 5(2), 189, 190 & 201---Obedience to Constitution, and law--Every body is bound to obey the command of the Constitution---Public functionaries are also duty bound to act in accordance with law i.e. to act within the framework of Law and Constitution---All-organs of the State are under the statutory duty to act in aid of the law declared by the Supreme Court and not to flout the same---Right declared under of Supreme Court cannot be overridden or nullified by an executive order, a rule or a dispensation short of Legislative will. Ch. Zahoor Elahi's case PLD 1975 SC 383; Messrs Nishat Mills Limited v. Government of Pakistan and others 1989 CLC 1692; Works Cooperative Housing Society and another v. The Karachi Development Authority PLD 1969 SC 430 and Capt. (Retd.) Abdul Qayyum, Executive Engineer v. Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar and 4 others PLD 1992 SC 184 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Arts. 204, 2-A, 5(2), 189, 190 & 201---Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), S.3/4---Contempt of Court---Land of the petitioner had been taken away without acquiring under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 without his consent and without payment of a single penny to him, simply to save/protect the land of the then Chief Minister and his relations---Said land was utilized by the respondents in the year 1996--Despite. direction of the High Court and the. Supreme Court to the respondents to provide alternative land to the petitioner, they had not done so till today---Respondents did not implement the s of the High Court and Supreme Court on one pretext or the other without any justification---Correspondence between the respondents themselves was clearly in derogation of the of the High Court as well as of the Supreme Court falling within the scope of contempt of Court not less than even by the Law Department whose advice and opinion was not in consonance with the parameters prescribed by the High…
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