CH. MUHAMMAD ASLAM versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN
Article 32 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), President of Article 199 Constitution Petition, performing his duties under Article 32, functions under judicial function under the Office of Federal Ombudsman (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 and not in the administrative capacity of such President. Scope of work In keeping with the Ombudsman's recommendations, there is a minimum requirement under the law that conforms to the principles of natural justice. The question regarding the limit should be dealt with, as any one of the parties has the right to cross the boundary. If the President's order is to suffer serious error, then if the matter of ban is not presented in the case where the concerned person / party has received notice / opportunity to give a response / reply to this representative, the President The decision cannot be canceled simply because a personal / oral hearing was not offered, but where the relevant person / party has no notice / opportunity to file a comment or response and the decision shall be made as such Opportunities were made, representation needed to be reconsidered and decisions were made after the notice and filing of responses / comments thereon. Was an opportunity. The petitioner was present in the present case, which needs to be decided according to law. The High Court termed the President's order as having no legal effect from the observation that the representation filed by the defendant company was considered pending before the President. Will go , Which will be considered first and decided according to the law. The contents of the representation response filed by the representative may also be given appropriate weight when deciding the representation.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
