Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 25 of 1970, decided on 3rd March 1970.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 21st January 1970, in Writ Petition No. 1785 of 1969).

Art. 98‑Writ proceedings Petitioner failing to appear before High Court in his writ petition cannot complain against orders passed.

Farrukh Ameen, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 3rd March 1970.

J.‑The petitioner in this case filed a writ petition in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore Seat, to challenge the validity of certain notices issued in pursuance to section 6‑A of the West Pakistan Entertainments Duty Act, 1958, as inserted by the West Pakistan Entertain ments Duty Ordinance, 1969. The petitioner also maintained that the Ordinance of 1969 was itself ultra vires.

Along with the writ petition a Civil Miscellaneous applica tion was also moved for staying the operation of the orders issued by the authorities under the above‑mentioned provisions. When both these matters came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. But the High Court, instead of dismissing both the writ petition as well as the Misc. Application for non‑prosecution, heard the learned Advocate‑General and admitted the writ petition for a regular hearing on the ground that the questions arising in it which had been noticed in an earlier order passed by the High Court on the 4th December 1969, possibly in some other petition, were of some public importance. The recovery of the tax purported to be levied in pursuance of these provisions was also stayed suo moto to the extent that the demands were in excess of 50 per cent.

The petitioner concerned has now come up for special leave to appeal and its grievance is that the High Court should have not only granted this limited stay but also suspended the operation of section 6‑A of the West Pakistan Entertainments Duty Ordinance, 1969.

This petition is, in our opinion, wholly misconceived, for, the petitioner not having appeared before the High Court hall no cause to complain against the order passed by the High Court. In any event no order could be made by any Court suspending the operation of a law unless that law had been declared to be ultra vires by the Court. All that could be done was to stay the operation of the action taken under the law if prima facie a case was made out.

In the present case whatever was given to the petitioner concerned was given gratuitously, for, strictly speaking the petitions before the High Court should have been dismissed for non‑prosecution as there was no body there to press the petitions.

This petition is, accordingly, dismissed as being wholly misconceived.

Petition dismissed,

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.