| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 2707 2010 SLD 2707 2010 PLD 374 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-70 of 2005 and D-942 of 2007, decided on 5th July, 2010, DATE of hearing: 28th April, 2010
MUSHIR ALAM AND TUFAIL H. IBRAHIM, JJ
Latif A. Shakoor for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 70 of 2005). Ashraf Mughal, D.A.G. for
Respondent No. 1 (in C.P. No. 70 of 2005). Manzoor Ahmed for
Respondent No. 2 (in C.P. No. 70 of 2005). Shakeel Ahmed for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 942 of 2007). Sartaj
Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-70 of 2005 and D-942 of 2007, decided on 5th July, 2010, DATE of hearing: 28th April, 2010
MUSHIR ALAM AND TUFAIL H. IBRAHIM, JJ
Latif A. Shakoor for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 70 of 2005). Ashraf Mughal, D.A.G. for
Respondent No. 1 (in C.P. No. 70 of 2005). Manzoor Ahmed for
Respondent No. 2 (in C.P. No. 70 of 2005). Shakeel Ahmed for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 942 of 2007). Sartaj
ZAINAB GARMENTS (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive and others
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Housing and Works, Islamabad court and another
Law:
Section:
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Commercialization of plot---Principles---Decision of superior courts, implementation of---Grievance of petitioner was that authorities had demanded commercialization charges which was against the decisions made by superior courts---Validity---Once an area was declared commercial by law, there was no requirement to apply and observe any requirement, which otherwise were required to be observed and followed to obtain conversion of individual residential into commercial property---No need to pay conversion fee, as property in question stood converted by operation of some rules and or notification issued under authority of law---When a road had been declared commercial on issuance of notification, there would be no question of commercialization fee---Petition was allowed accordingly. S.M. Aslam v. KBCA 2005 CLC 759; Ardashir Cowsjee v. Clifton Cantonment Board 1998 MLD 1818; Irfan v. KBCA 2005 CLC 694; Arshad Abdullah v. Government of Sindh 2006 YLR 3209 and Muhammad Hanif v. Sameena Sibtain 2007 YLR 3113 rel. Ardashir Cowsjee v. Clifton Cantonment Board 1998 MLD 1818; Irfan v. KBCA 2005 CLC 694; Arshad Abdullah v. Government of Sindh 2006 YLR 3209; Navaid Hussain v. Jehangir Siddiqui 2007 CLC 1568; Syed Tahir Hussain Mehmoodi v.Tayyab 2009 YLR 1254; Haji Amin v. Navaid hussain 2008 SCMR 133; Excel Builders v. Ardashir Cowasjee 1999 SCMR 2089; Multiline Associates v. Ardershir Cowasjee PLD 1995 SC 423 = 1995 SCMR 362 and Sikander A Karim v. State 1995 SCMR 387 ref. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Responsibility---Scope---Dispensation of justice is not alone the function of court, public functionaries are equally responsible to treat all citizens placed in similar circumstances alike---Though under trichotomy of power, it is the. Legislature that makes law, executive through public and statutory functionary make policies and implement law, whereas enunciation, interpretation and exposition of law is the function of Judiciary---When a particular law, rules, regulation, policy etc., is expounded and enunciated by superior courts, it is binding on all---For safe administration of…
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