Articles 199 (1) (b) (ii) and (c) indicate the issuance of a notification by the provincial government as a respondent to the Capital City Police Officer in the press, in which case the commission's errors in a very serious incident. And have been found responsible for errors. Judicial inquiry when inquiring about the provincial government's automotive exercise by constitutional jurisdiction by judges of the High Court when dealing with such news as requests under Article 199 (1) (c) of the Constitution The result was serving as a regional policeman. The officer said when the tragic incident occurred, in which several Christians lost their lives and their homes were burned to the respondents, such a tribunal blamed the commission's actions and errors. Also sent their recommendations to the federal government. Instead of taking any action against the respondents, the government instead paid such premiums for such negligence, giving the capital city police officer Sue Moto's action as a major corrective action, giving him immediate responsibility. Performing a performance, whereby the High Court may ask the holder of a public office to show which authority he / she is under the authority of (the capital city police officer), especially the tribunal against him. In view of the recommendations made by and sent to the Federal Government, the respondents should be charged with such commissions. He is found responsible for errors and omissions, so how can he be allowed to work during the holidays when he is not eligible for it? Hi such post
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
