Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑56 of 1970, decided on 21st August 1970.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 31st March 1970, in Writ Petition No. 463 of 1969).

Constitution of Pakistan (1962),

Art. 98‑Writ petition- Petition allowed by oral pronouncement but decision later changed with notice to parties‑High Court, held, could change its decision before signing of judgment.

A. H. Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Md. Ibrahim Memon, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 21st August 1970.

MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑

The bid given by the petitioner for leasing out octroi duty of Municipal Committee, Jamesabad, was under the rules subject to the approval of the Controlling Authority. He withheld the approval on the ground that no other person bad participated in the auction. It could not, therefore, be said that the petitioner had given the highest bid.

Aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, the petitioner moved the High Court in writ jurisdiction on grounds none of which was tenable in law. The petition was, at first, allowed by an oral pronouncement, but on their attention being drawn to the relevant rules, the learned Judges with notice to the parties changed their decision and dismissed the writ petition.

In support of the petition for leave to appeal, it is urged : (i) that the High Court having announced the order allowing the writ petition could not review the order suo motu and (ii) that the order passed by the Controlling Authority was without lawful authority.

There is little merit in either ground. It is well established that learned Judges in the High Court can change their decision before putting their signatures to the judgment. No legal provision to the contrary was cited by Mr. A. H. Pirzada. He was also unable to point out any provision of law under which the Con trolling Authority was bound to give approval to the auction in favour of the petitioner. On the contrary the rules specifically provide that auction of octroi duty is subject to the approval of the Controlling Authority. No conditions for exercise of the discretion vested in him are provided in the rules.

The order passed by the High Court is thus fully warranted in law. The petition is dismissed.

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.