Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

SECRETARY TO HEALTH GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN, QUETTA versus IMTIAZ BASHIR


Article 3 Leave for appeal of the preliminary objection raised by the respondents that the candidate eligible under the High Court decision appears to be interested in enrolling the respondents' seats for adjusting elsewhere. The fact is, the matter is adjourned but still not in a position to be informed in a realistic way, considering the position of arbitrary exercise in the second such appeal filed by the applicants, In this appeal debate, only the appeals were dismissed as an educational exercise [educational institutions]

1982 S C M R 199(2)

Present: Anwarul Haq, C. J. Muhammad Haleem, G. Safdar Shah and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ

SECRETARY, HEALTH TO GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN, QUETTA AND 2 OTHERS‑Appellants

Versus

IMTIAZ BASHIR ETC.‑Respondents

Civil Appeals Nos. 73 and 74 of 1978, decided on 6th August, 1980.

(On appeal from judgment dated 12th April, 1978 of the Baluchistan High Court in Constitutional Petitions 157 and 169 of 1977).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑

‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal‑Preliminary objection raised by respondent that deserving candidates seemingly prejudiced by High Court's judgment no more interested in seeking admission on seats given to respondents for being adjusted elsewhere ‑ Counsel for appellants seeking time to get instructions on such factual fact, case adjourned but still counsel not in a position to state factual position A. positively‑All efforts to obtain relevant information having failed no useful purpose likely to be served by postponing matter any further Point raised by contesting respondent seeing to be based on facts and legal position regarding exercise of discretion being considered in other similar appeal filed by appellants, its discussion in appeal in hand, held, an academic exercise only‑Appeals dismissed accord ingly.‑[Educational institutions].

Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General (Punjab) and S. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.

Bashir Ahmad Ansari,

Advocate, Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1 (in both Appeals).

Date of hearing: 17th February 1980.

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH

,

J

.‑These two appeals through special leave arose out of acceptance by the High Court of Baluchistan of the plea of the contesting respondents that they were entitled to admission to the M. B., B. S. 1st Year Class of the Bolan Medical College. Leave was granted to consider the questions: That High Court should not have exercised its Constitutional jurisdiction in favour of the contesting respondents: that the writ petitions should have been dismissed in proper exercise of its discretion in the "larger interest of the other contesting students", and that the High court had no jurisdiction to direct the appellants to admit the contesting respondents because "by allowing their writ petitions not only two deserving candidates have been denied admission to the Bolan Medical College, but the seats to which Imtiaz Bashir and Miss Farida Naz were given admission in Nishter Medical College, would be wasted to the great prejudice of the other reserving candidates".

At the time of hearing the appeals, learned counsel for the contesting respondents (Imtiaz Bashir and Miss Farida Naz) raised a preliminary point, namely that the deserving candidates, who seemed to have been prejudiced by the impugned judgment of the High Court. are no more interested in seeking admission on the seats given to the respondents and that they have already been adjusted elsewhere. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General Punjab, who appeared on behalf of the appellants, sought time to get instructions on this factual aspect. Instead of adjourning the appeals, after hearing both the sides, the judgment was reserved with direction to the Assistant Advocate‑General to submit, in the meanwhile, the reply or. The aforesaid aspect of the case. He submitted in writing on 20‑2‑1980 that although he had "obtained the information orally" yet he was "checking and so far information in writing has not been received".

It is apparent from the office note dated 4‑6‑1980 that all efforts to obtain the relevant information have failed. No useful purpose would be served by postponing the matter any further. The point raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents seems to be based on facts. The legal question regarding exercise of discretion' is being considered in other similar appeal filed by the appellants. Its discussion in these appeals would only be an academic exercise. We, accordingly, in the circum stances stated above, dismiss these appeals. There shall be no order as to costs.

Appeals dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Dandot lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.