Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 739 2007 SLD 739 2007 PLD 57 2007 PLJ 337
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 17343 of 2004, heard on 5th September, 2006
SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J
Muhammad Ali Malik for Petitioner. Ch. Aamir Rehman, Addl. A.G., Punjab for
Respondent. Abid Hassan Minto for
Respondent

SARFRAZ AHMAD TARAR

VS

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and another

Law: Punjab Office of Ombudsman Act, 1997

Section: 3(2),3

(a) Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Act, (X of 1997)--- ----S. 3(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Appointment of Ombudsman---Qualifications---Vires of amended subsection (2) of S.3 of Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Act, 1997---Expression "or any other person of known integrity"---Scope---Petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent as Ombudsman Punjab on grounds that only a Judge of High Court or a person qualified to be Judge of High Court was to be appointed Ombudsman in spite of amendment made in subsection (2) of S.3 of Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Act, 1997 to the effect "or any other person of known integrity", and that amendment in S.3(2) of the Act was ultra vires the Constitution---Validity---Scope of S.3(2) of Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Act, 1997, was enlarged through amendment so as to enable the government to appoint Ombudsman other than a Judge of Superior Court which transpired from phraseology "or any other person of known integrity"-Competency of Provincial Legislature to amend a law enacted by it was not to be disputed nor it had been shown how the amendment so made was ultra vires any of provisions of Constitution---Functions to be performed by holder of office of Ombudsman were not purely and exclusively of judicial nature---Person of integrity having served as civil servant by virtue of his administrative experience could also be eminently suitable for the said office---Any restricted construction of amended provision i.e., that only a person having judicial knowledge could be appointed as Ombudsman, was not only to defeat the intendment of Legislature, rather the same was to render the phrase "any other person" as meaningless and otiose---Each word of statute was entitled to be given meaning and no part of it was to be treated as redundant---Mere desire that Ombudsman's office was to be held by a person belonging to judiciary was not to be made a ground for striking down a provision of law validly made by competent legislature---Contention of petitioner that expression "or any other person" was to be read ejusdem generis and not in isolation, was devoid of force, for the word "or" in the…
🔒
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