Find a Lawyer

MANZOOR BHATTI versus EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANTONMENT BOARD, MULTAN

Containment Act 1924 Section 116 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Part II [Arts 7 to 40] and Article 199 Constitutional Application Public Interest The dispute between the parties on the maintenance of the park in the cantonment area of litigation was that the cantonment authorities changed the existing public. Plans to be a park and applicant citizen in a shopping center were opposed to the action taken by the Cantonment Executive Officer, therefore, authorities decided to convert it to a shopping center. Was. Or any elected representative was not permitted, by law, to replace a place that was for public purpose and used as residents / citizens of the area, where public purpose was used for public purposes in public documents. Existed, they could not be denied their basic rights. Constitution ensures children's parks, gardens and greenery to be enjoyed. The LTS was intended for public purpose and established for the public interest in the large playground raised by the Executive Officer. He went on to fulfill all of his duties and responsibilities, cultivating his own flowers and acting as an executive officer in the installation of sports items for children. He did not perform his duties, protected the park's existence, green belts and gardens built for public purposes, then the officer's negligence that action could be taken against him for mismanagement, in the present case, restoration. The duty was to keep the park in its original form, the same way in the Park Act top civil advocates from Murree lawyer