Find a Lawyer

GILGIT-BALTISTAN HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCATION versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, G.B. AND 10

Article 71 (2) directs the government and the relevant administrative authorities to argue that the community is expressing anger over such actions due to restrictions / restrictions on the written request and other administrative stringent measures in the district for security reasons. Should be released. The actions exempted lawyers from causing security and anxiety to civilians, but they were inevitable and forces could not be instructed to ignore their duties while the forces deployed in the wake of illegal activities with civilians. Maintaining good behavior can be instructed. Among the miscreants, the Chief Court directed that the lawyer be treated with respect by showing his identity as a member of the bar, but without compromising on basic security measures, bar members also maintained their dignity and dignity. Instructed to keep. Increasing your cooperation with law enforcement agencies, cing agencies' written requests were dealt with accordingly \ r \ n

Related judgments — Gilgit Baltistan, 2012

• SAFDAR ENTERPRISES PVT. LIMITED through Javed Hussain v. NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through President Head Office 2012 CLD 1578
• SHAKOOR KHAN v. Mst. IQBAL BANO 2012 YLR 2258
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary G.B. Gilgit 2012 PLC(CS) 108
• MEHTAB KHAN, CHIEF EDITOR DAILY AUSAF 2012 PCrLJ 261
• SAFDAR ENTERPRISES PVT. (LIMITED) through Javed Hussain v. NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through President 2012 CLC 1264
• AZHAR WALI v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GILGIT 2012 PCrLJ 1296
• SHABAN ALI v. Mst. ZAINABA 2012 CLC 1403
• Mst. KHUSHAB JUMA v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Defence Secretary, Rawalpindi 2012 CLC 1429

All Gilgit Baltistan judgments of 2012 →

pakistani advocates Matiari lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes