Find a Lawyer

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN versus PROFESSOR DR. ANWAR

Articles 9 and 32 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) against the complainant of the Federal Ombudsman (Ombudsman) were filed against the High Court against the order of the complainant in its constitutional petition that it filed The complaint was appointed by the Ombudsman on the one hand on the representation filed by the applicant agency without the defendant's hearing before the President of Pakistan and the written reply of the respondents also to pass an order contrary to its interests. Was not summoned before and that he was condemned by the unheard of High Court which allowed the representation. ????? , Directed the relevant department officer to give the defendant an opportunity to be heard before dismissing the representation of the applicant agency, before deciding the representation against the federal due diligence recommendation, to conclude contrary to the recommendations of the Federal Ombudsman. Provide reasonable and equitable reasons for Against every scheme of the Ombudsman's law to represent the press, it was not possible for the President to provide a personal hearing on such representation to the parties, in response to the representation of the relevant constituents in the comments / written arguments. Inviting, would be deemed to be sufficiently compliant with the law, because the direction of the High Court to deliver the hearing to the defendant was outside the scope of Article 32 of setting up the Office of the Divisional Affidavit (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 The section officer could not act as the president's agent, saying that the writ petition was upheld by the Supreme Court. Had been changed and dealt with. With an amendment to the unidentified decision that the petitioner filed divorce advocates from Kalaswala lawyer