DR. MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Article 204 Disruptions in judicial proceedings prevented the strike by law officers from hearing the petition of the affected court, in the same way a large number of federations were presented as parties, as the deliberations of the Federation's officers were presented. The reason for this was not the personal complaint of the Attorney General, which is clearly seen in the Attorney General's federal capital's arrest, on 10 October 2012. The High Court provided justice for the ransom throughout Pakistan by law officers. Deliberately refused to ignore, because it violated their legal duties. And it can also be categorized as a process of obstruction, interference or prejudice of the law because the High Court took a gentle approach, as it was the first case of its kind and could have pressured the law officers to take up their respective positions. Become a party to illegal protests to secure. And the Standing Council chose not to work on 1, 2010. Therefore, there was no justification. The High Court directed the government to reduce the salaries of the law officers by one day and the federal government along with other law officers in the country. Recommended equal treatment, which boycotted the judicial proceedings on the Order of 1 10 2012. General Chat Chat Lounge n
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2013
