Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1972, decided on 12th October, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit, Baghdad‑ ul‑Jadid, dated 27‑9‑1971 in W. P. 346/71/ BWP).

--- Arts. 199 & 185(3)‑No‑Objection Certificate, validity of‑Validity of No‑Objection Certificate granted in respect of construction of a cinema house challenged by way of writ petition but construction completed before filing of writ petition‑‑Supreme Court granting leave to appeal to consider whether order maintaining status quo granted on correct principles and vacating High Court's order on clear under standing that any further construction of cinema as made by petitioners would be at their own risk‑Respondents not appearing before Supreme Court to oppose appeal, counsel on behalf of State also refusing to contest and one of appellants present in Court stating cinema in question having been functioning since several years past Appeal, in absence of contest, allowed.

Nemo for Appellant

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.

Khalil Ramdey, Assistant Advocate‑General (Punjab) for Respondents Nos. 5 to 6.

Date of hearing : 12th October, 1981.

.‑The dispute in this appeal relates to the order of the Lahore High Court dated 27th of September, 1971, confirming status quo earlier granted.

Respondents 1 to 4 filed Constitutional Petition No. 346/BWP of 1971 wherein they impugned the legality of the No‑Objection Certificate dated 25th of November, 1970, granted to the appellants, for the construction of an open air cinema at Sadiqabad, District Rahim Yar Khan. However, when this constitutional petition was filed, the construction of this open air cinema had been completed which fact was evident even from the parawise comments of the District Magistrate The appellants, thereupon, invoked the. jurisdiction of this Court through a petition and leave was granted to consider as to whether the order maintaining status quo was granted on correct principles. Further, the order of the High Court w vacated "on the clear understanding that any further construction of the cinema as made by the petitioners, will be at their own risk".

Respondents 1 to 4 have not appeared today before the Court to oppose the appeal while the Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, on behalf of respondents 5 and 6, has stated that he would not also contest it. Inn mullah, one of the appellants, who was present in Court, has stated that the open air cinema is functioning since 1974. As there is no contest, We would allow the appeal bat with no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.