Find a Lawyer

AZAD KASHMIR LOGGING AND SAW MILL CORPORATION versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT

Section 2, 4, Fundamental Rights No. 14 and Section 42 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974, a notification imposing a full ban for a three-year period on the cutting of trees on a commercial basis, which includes the Forest and Logging Department All contracts are with Mill Corporation. Work orders were issued but the original work was not canceled The High Court found that the ban on cutting down trees does not provide compensation to the affected persons and therefore conflicted with the fundamental rights number 14. , The jurisdiction was valid. Section 2 was the property as defined in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, and the composition of the component of the fundamental right number 14 would include the right or interest in the real estate or the source of interest and the source of production or any 14 (1) does not postulate that no person shall be deprived of his property by chance, the interest of contractors contracted with the law was defined by the extension of property as defined in section 2 of the Constitution's contractor. , So according to the law, the contractors base their claim on the violation of the Constitution and it They could not be deprived of property rights. Their case was not based on contract or obligation, which was why the same government did not act as a party to the contract, but rather violated the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution in the exercise of executive authority. There may be a government-issued notification, which was legally challenged by filing a writ petition and respondents' response power of attorney advocate Dadu lawyer