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 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 321 of 1972, decided on 22nd January 1973.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 22nd June 1972, in Writ Petition No. 849 of 1972).
Art. 186‑Appeal to Supreme Court‑‑Questions of fact‑Question whether petitioner is or is not a pauper‑A question of fact‑High Court giving cogent reasons for arriving at its conclusion‑Interference refused.
Art. 201‑Writ petition Cannot lie against High Court.
Petitioner in person.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 22nd January 1973.
The petitioner applied for one day's leave on the 12th November 1969, on the ground of illness which was allowed without pay by respondent No. 2 by order dated the 14th November 1969. The petitioner was also directed that in future, if he asks for leave on medical ground, he will appear before the Registrar personally along with the application. The petitioner challenged this order in appeal which was dismissed with the remarks that it could not be entertained being incompetent in the light of rule 24 of the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules. The matter was then placed before Mr. Justice A. R Sheikh. It was further laid down before the Chief Justice for final orders. The Chief Justice, by order dated the 26th May 1971, observed that the leave not being a right of the employee, the respondent No. 2 was fully competent to refuse leave to the petitioner. He further observed that the view taken by respondent No. 2, in the circumstances of the case, was somewhat lenient as the petitioner was allowed leave without pay. He rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this order, filed Writ Petition No. 849 of 1972 in forma pauperis. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, by order dated the 22nd June 1972, dis missed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is not a pauper and that his application could not‑ be entertained on that ground. He further held that no writ can be granted against the High Court in respect of an order passed on the administrative side. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
The petitioner appeared in person. He says that he is pauper and his petition should have been entertained by the High Court. The question whether the petitioner is a pauper or not is a question of fact. The High Court has given cogent reasons to show that the petitioner was in a position to pay the court‑fee and that he was not a pauper. Moreover, the High Court was perfectly justified in holding that no writ lies against the High Court. There is no force in the petition. The petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer