Find a Lawyer

AKLASC versus AZAD J&K GOVERNMENT

The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, Rupees 8, 13 and 14 of the Martyrs (L0 of 1984), Article 113 cannot be recognized as a violation of the facts relating to the fundamental rights of the Constitution. The trade association was banned. Based on a three-year period and the contractors were banned from continuing to cut down trees, they were challenged by the contractors in the constitutional petition before the High Court stating that the basic guarantees guaranteed by the constitution. Notification of infringement of rights was issued. In general terms, relief was given by the High Court without giving any specific direction that the contractors could be allowed to continue their work. Refused to give relief to continue work that had already been initiated under the agreement that Do not prove that they had begun work and invested in the ad ministration and respondents' responses to the constitutional petition, had clearly proved that the contractor had acted with confession years ago. Had begun and spent a large sum of money for the purpose of which the Court accepted the appeal, part of the High Court decision, issuing a directive to allow respondents to complete the contract in accordance with the High Court's legislation. Under which the controversial notification was declared illegal and invalid, the Supreme Court maintained. attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Pannu aqil lawyer