Find a Lawyer

SUO MOTU PETITION NO.11 OF 2005 versus SUO MOTU PETITION NO.11 OF 2005

Automatic action under Preamble Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001), Sections 141, 142, 143, 144 and Fourth Schedule, Part II, Item 34 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 9, 24, 184 (3) and Article 204. 184 (3) of the Constitution began with a weekly article, in which a citizen requested that kite-flying be banned from passing the said article because it would result in property worth billions of rupees. Is suffering from At the same time precious humanity was reviewed, dangerous kite activities did not fulfill certain requirements of the Punjab Prohibition of Ordinance, 2001, as the Lahore High Court pointed out MD Tahir, MD Tahir, Government of Punjab 2001. KCLC 1180 reported. Due to the activities of kite-flying, the increasing number of incidents of harm to public property and lives are increasing. Kite-driven activity was not, at first, enthusiasm, but a serious threat to their lives. In the province of Punjab so far the inadequate provision for obtaining the provisions of the Civil Expert Laws, Sections 141 and 142, Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, is strictly enforced even if fully implemented / enforced. Needed to be imposed, those who were indirectly or indirectly responsible for endangering the lives of innocent citizens, as well as responsible for the supply of electricity to the individual and the company, which had the basic rights of citizens. Deny, have to stop. It would not be appropriate to allow art 9 and 24 of the constitution and the activities of kite-flying, born at the cost of human life and property, owned by a public institution or private persons, by a court-issued kite flying. best advocate from Badin lawyer