Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 101, 102 and 103 of 1972, decided on 30th June 1972.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 14th February 1972, in Writ Petitions 4os: 1720‑S, 1721‑S and 1722‑S of 1970).
Constitution of Pakistan (1962),
Art. 58(3)‑Aggrieved party, a Municipal Corporation ‑‑Provincial Government has no locus standi to maintain petition for Special Leave to Appeal against order of High Court.
Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, Assistant Advocate‑General Punjab (Hamiduddin, Advocate with him) instructed by Sh. Ijaz All, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 30th June 1972. .
This order will dispose of. Civil Petitions Nos. 101, 102 and 103 of 1972 in which common question of law is involved.
The respondents were appointed as Additional Legal Advisers and Legal Advisers of the Lahore Municipal Corporation. Their appointment as Legal Advisers was approved by the West Pakistan Government. By letter dated the 10th November 1970 of the Chairman of the Lahore Municipal Corporation, the respondents were informed in the following terms:‑‑--
"As directed by Government under their Memorandum No. SO. IV‑LMC‑3(26)/69, dated the 9th November 1970, your services will stand terminated on the expiry of period of notice of 90 days from the date of issue of this notice in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the West Pakistan Municipal Committees (Legal Advisors) Rules, 19645"
The respondents challenged this order in Writ Petitions Nos. 1720‑S 1721‑S and 1722‑S of 1970. A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, by judgment dated the 14th February 1972, has set aside the order of termination of services of the above‑mentioned respondents. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said judgment.
Mr. Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, learned Assistant Advocate General, states that Civil Petition No. 103 of 1972 has become infructuous as the post of the Legal Adviser has been abolished and the service of the respondent has been terminated. He does not, therefore, press this petition. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.
As regards the other petitions, the learned Assistant Advocate General, contended that the appointment of the respondents was approved under section 3(1) (a) of Ordinance No. XXXII of 1965. In this Ordinance, it was open to the Government to terminate the services of the respondents. This Ordinance was repealed by Ordinance No. XLIX of 1969 and there was no longer any power in the Government to remove the respondents from the service of the Lahore Municipal Corporation. The learned Asstt. Advocate‑General was unable to satisfy us that there was any provision under which the Government was com petent to terminate the services of the respondents.
According to the learned Assistant Advocate‑General, the services of the respondents were terminated by the Lahore Munici pal Corporation. If that is so, it is for the Lahore Municipal Cor poration to challenge the order of the High Court. The petitioner cannot challenge the judgment of the High Court on behalf of the Lahore Municipal Corporation. It has no locus standi to do so. In view of this, Petitions Nos. 101 and 102 of 1972 also stand a dismissed.
Leave refused,
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer