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.
Constitutional Petition No. D‑327 of 1978, decided on 30th May, 1978.
‑‑‑ Art. 199‑Maxim: Audi alteram partem‑ General ditty to act judicially cast on competent authority‑Only clear language will be interpreted as conferring a power to exclude operation of rule of audi alteram partem‑Public functionary though not required to act judicially but only to hold only such inquiry as he considered appropriate, yet such functionary having been acting in a quasi‑judicial capacity, opportunity of hearing to effected person mandatory m circumstances Maxim.
University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmed P L D 1965 S C 90 ; Abdus Saboor Khan v. Karachi University P L D 19(6 S C 536 ; Murlidhar v. University of Karachi P L D 1966 S C 841 ; K. A. Jaisinghari v. Custodian of Evacuee Property P L D 1965 S C 453 and Sind Employees' Social Security Institution v. Adamjee Cotton Mills Limited PLD1975SC32 ref.
‑‑‑ S. 15‑Appeal ‑Contention that petitioner having had a right of appeal to Federal Government where proper opportunity of hearing could be granted to him, no necessity existed to give him opportunity of hearing before passing impugned order‑Provision as to appeal under S. 15 of Ordinance, held, does not validate proceedings or do away with right of opportunity of hearing before an important order affecting representative character of persons of a National Organization could have been passed Appeal, held further, would have been ineffective in ‑such case due to impugned order having been passed with approval of Federal Government.
Rex v. Housing Appeal Tribunal (1920) 3 K B D 334 and Regina v, Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner (1865) 1 Q B D 456 ref.
‑‑ S. 9(2)‑Election‑Contention that petitioner having taken part in election stood estopped from challenging same‑Petitioner merely filing nomination paper for election and taking no other part ‑ Nomination paper filed prior to filing of present petition due to impugned order having directed re‑election to be held before a prescribed date‑Petitioner in circumstances by mere act of filing of nomination paper could not be said to have requested in impugned order ‑Mere filing of nomination paper for election can not be considered or deemed to be a disability so as to preclude a party from alleging or proving in legal proceedings that a fact is otherwise than it has been made to appear by matter giving rise to disability.
Ali Ahmed Fazeel with Mansoorul Arfin for Petitioner.
Zaheeruddin Khan for Respondent No. 1.
S. J. Alum, Deputy Attorney‑General for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Muhammad Arif for Respondents Nos. 4 to 8.
Date of hearing : 30th May. 1978.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer