Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
P L D 2017 Lahore 802
Before Jawad Hassan, J
MUNDA ELEVEN CRICKET CLUB—Petitioner
versus
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 4 others—Respondents
Writ Petition No.59837 of 2017, decided on 23rd August, 2017.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan—
—Art. 199—Sports (Development and Control) Ordinance (XVI of 1962), Ss. 3 & 4—SRO No. 43(K.E)/2014 dated 10.07.2014-Constitution of Pakistan Cricket Board—Nature and object—Question before the High Court was whether the Constitution of Pakistan Cricket Board was a statutory instrument and actions under the same could be challenged in the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—Held, Constitution of the Board was for the internal control and management amongst the members of the Board only and such members had been defined in the Constitution of the Board—Constitution of Pakistan Cricket Board was made specifically to promote and regulate the conduct of its members, to set up a code of conduct for discipline and to regulate affiliation of constituent members, which was purely the internal management of the Board—Constitution of Pakistan Cricket Board, was non-statutory in nature and actions under the same could not be challenged under the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—Constitutional petition was not maintainable in circumstances. [pp. 813, 814] A & B
Muhammad Zaman and others v. Government of Pakistan and others 2017 SCMR 571; Shafique Ahmad Khan and others v. NESCOM and others PLD 2016 SC 377; Muhammad Tariq Badr and another v. National Bank of Pakistan and others 2013 SCMR 314 and IPC through Secretary v. Arbab Altaf Hussain and others 2014 SCMR 1573 rel.
Dr. Zafar Ullah and 5 others 2016 CLD 1283; Air Marshal (R) Syed Qaiser Hussain v. Sajid Hussain Toori and 4 others 2017 CLC 617; Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2012 SCMR 455; Syed Ghazi Gulab Jamal v. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal Peshawar and 2 others 2015 CLC 953; Syed Mashooq Mohiuddin Shah v. Syed Fazul Ali Shah and 37 others 2014 CLC 1181; Pakistan WAPDA Employees Pegham Union v. Member National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad and others 2014 SCMR 1676; Amir Jamal and others Malik Zahoor and others 2011 SCMR 1023; Syed Imran Shah and others v. Government of NWFP and others PLD 2004 SC 285 and MQM and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2014 CLC 335 ref.
(b) Administration of justice—
—When law required a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same must be done accordingly and if the prescribed procedure was not followed, then presumption would be that the said thing had not been legally done. [p. 816] C
Syed Bhais (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Local Government PLD 2012 Lah. 52 rel.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan—
—Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Maintainability—Determination as to whether Constitutional petition had been competently filed by authorized person(s)—Constitutional petition was filed by President of a Cricket Club, on behalf of said Club, against an action taken by the Pakistan Cricket Board ("PCB"), in absence of any resolution authorizing President of the said Club to initiate such proceedings— Held, that since the petitioner (President of the Club) had not submitted any resolution authorizing him to specifically initiate such proceedings, therefore Constitutional petition was not maintainable, [p. 816] D
TNB Liberty Power Ltd. v. Director of Labour, Government of Sindh 2014 PLC 382; Munawar Ali Khan v. Secretary, Land Utilization Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi 2014 YLR 1602; Syed Bhais (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Local Government PLD 2012 Lah. 52 and Poineer Cricket Club v. Election Commissioner, PCB and others W.P. No.30656 of 2013 rel.
(d) Constitution of Pakistan—
—Art. 199—Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—Scope— Factual controversy/question of facts—Authenticity of documents— Scope—Questions as to authenticity of documents involved a factual controversy as such authenticity stood on the touchstone of evidence which the High Court under its Constitutional juri: diction could not record—Scope of the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court was dependent on questions which were devoid of factual controversies, [p. 819] E
Poineer Cricket Club v. Election Commissioner, PCB and others W.P. No.30656 of 2013; Pakistan WAPDA Employees Pegham Union v. Member, National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad and others 2014 SCMR 1676 and Amir Jamal and others v. Malik Zahoor and others 2011 SCMR 1023 rel.
(e) Substantial Compliance, doctrine of—
—Applicability—Principles—Doctrine of substantial compliance was a doctrine in equity and it stated that if a good faith attempt was made to perfÓrm; requirements of a law or contract, but failed to exactly meet the specifics, and if the essential aim of the law or contract had been met, such law or contract would still be considered as having been complied with or completed—Doctrine of substantial compliance was compliance with essential requirements of something (as a statute or contract) that satisfied its purpose or objective even though its fÓrm;al requirements were not complied with—When the relevant provisions of law were complied with, substantial compliance was to be held to be sufficient and strict compliance of rules was not required as long as it was not detrimental to public policy—Substantial or no compliance of directory provisions, if existed, then an Act could not be invalidated so long as it was in accordance with the law—Where an authority or perfÓrm;ance of fÓrm;alities was delegated upon a person under a special law or was prescribed by the statute, then doctrine of substantial compliance could not be valid—Mandatory provisions required strict compliance however, for provisions that were directory in nature, the doctrine of substantial compliance was sufficient, [p. 822] F & G
Air Marshal (R) Syed Qaiser Hussain v. Sajid Hussain Toori and 4 others 2017 CLC 617; Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2012 SCMR 455; Syed Ghazi Gulab Jamal v. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Peshawar and 2 others 2015 CLC 953; Syed Mashooq Mohiuddin Shah v. Syed Fazul Ali Shah and 37 others 2014 CLC 1181 and MQM and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2014 CLC 335 ref.
Collector of Sales Tax and Central Excise v. Zamindar Paper and Board Mills, 2008 SCMR 615; Abdul Aziz v. Malik Aman 2007 SCMR 383; Azmatullah through L.Rs. v. Hameeda Bibi 2005 SCMR 2001; Muhammad Nawaz v. Province of Punjab 2005 SCMR 1612; Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan v. Federation of Pakistan 2012 SCMR 455; Abdur Rahim Ghulam Qadir v. The Federation of Pakistan PLD 1957 (W.P.) Lah. 279; Nishat Mills Limited v. Superintendent of Central Excise PLD 1989 SC 222; E.A. Evans v. Muhammad Ashraf PLD 1964 SC 536;Nishat Mills Limited v. Superintendent of Central Excise PLD 1989 SC 222; The Controller of Estate Duty (Representing Central Board of Revenue) Pakistan v. Radha Kanta Das PLD 1959 SC 330; Habib Bank Limited v. Sultan Ahmad 2001 SCMR 679; Federal Public Service Commission v. Syed Muhammad Afaq PLD 2002 SC 167; Haji Khuda Baksh Nizamani v. Election Tribunal 2003 MLD 607; Manzoor Ahmed v. The State PLD 2008 Lah. 243; Muhammad Mushtaq v. The State PLD 2006 Pesh. 39; Director Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise), Faisalabad and aother v. Bagh Ali 2010 PTD 1024 and Syed Musadiq v. The State PLD 2003 Kar. 216 rel.
Shaigan Ijaz Chadhar for Petitioner.
Tafazzal H. Rizvi, Tahir Mahmood Ahmad Khokhar, Deputy Attorney-General and Sadia Malik, Assistant Attorney-General for Respondents.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer