PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COUNCIL versus RACHNA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
The Section 30 Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1975), the grant of a Section 3 approval appellant in the intra-court appeal, sought in the questioning order approved in the constitutional petition on the ground that credibility was given to the institutions that are being educated. Not to these students. The controversy of the High Court in the institution was also attacked on the basis that the order was passed on the basis of consensus, while the Legal Counsel of the Engineering Council never agreed with the counsel for the appellant and Experts agreed to the report for this purpose. The decision of the Constitution Record revealed that the consent of the legal counsel for the appellant was recorded by the court in his order against the record of the court. The court proceedings were not always worth the statement. I was sued. Any material kept on the lawyer record, which would negate the proceedings of the court, had no value and could not be so when the panel of six experts was nominated by the court with the consent of the parties when the party disputed the dispute. By agreeing to adopt a method of reconciliation, each party was prevented from challenging its authenticity on non-compliance with the legitimate process. According to the report of the Committee of Experts, the college had managed to run and handle the college after the University of Engineering and Technology took over, it was temporary for the college and half of it had already expired. The university was made available to the college that the return of verification between the middle was not in the proper state the appeal was dismissed.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
