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.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 120‑P of 1980, decided on 22nd September, 1980.
----Art. 185 (3) read with Art. 247 (7)‑‑Leave to appeal‑Petitioner obtaining admission in Medical College on basis of domicile certificate issued by competent authority but such certificate later revoked on ground of having not been issued after proper inquiry‑Constitutional' petition being filed by petitioner challenging such revocation Judges of High Court divided in opinion whether constitutional petition could lie in matter in view of bar contained in Art. 247 (7) of Constitution (1973)‑Matter referred to third Judge and such Judge holding lack of jurisdiction in superior Courts and constitutional petition being not maintainable‑Question involved concerning jurisdiction of superior Courts, High Court being divided in opinion and matter having to be referred to a third Judge, and direct effect of revocation of domicile certificate being cancellation of admission of petitioner in an institution located in a territory falling within jurisdiction of superior Courts, questions involved held, questions of general public importance‑‑‑Leave to appeal granted.‑[Leave to appeal].
Abdul Hakim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Date of hearing : 28th September, 4980.
‑the petitioner, who is a student of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 13‑7‑1980. P L D 1981 Pesh. 57, whereby the Constitutional petition filed by aim challenging the cancellation of his domicile certificate was dismissed.
2. The petitioner made two efforts to seek admission in the Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad, against the reserved seats of Tribal Area of Bajaur. In the first effort it is said that he forged a domicile certificate issued in the year 1976 to some one else but did not succeed. The second time he applied for a domicile certificate which was in fact issued to him after proper inquiry and by a competent authority. On its basis he was given admission in the College but before he could avail of it by attending the classes without his knowledge and behind his back the domicile certificate granted by the competent authority was revoked on the ground that it was not issued after proper inquiry. The petitioner challenged the revocation of the domicile certificate mainly on the ground that such an action could not have been taken by the Political Agent without associating him in the inquiry as vested rights had accrued in the meantime.
3. The learned Judges seized of the Constitutional petition were divided on the question whether in view of the bar contained in Article 247 (7) such a Constitutional petition could at all lie in respect of acts done by the Political Agent, Bajaur. The matter was referred to another learned Judge of the same Court who held that the superior Courts could not exercise jurisdiction and the Constitutional petition was not entertain able in respect of the revocation of the domicile certificate earlier issued to the petitioner.
4. Apart from the fact that the question involved in this petition con cerns the jurisdiction of the superior Courts, this is one of the cases where the learned Judges of the Peshawar High Court initially hearing the Constitutional petition were divided and the matter had to be referred to a third learned Judge. It is also clear that the direct and immediate effect of the revocation of the domicile certificate was the cancellation of the admission of the peti tioner in an institution which was located in territories where the jurisdiction of the superior Courts admittedly exists. We consider that this petition raise question of general public importance and relates to the jurisdiction of the superior Courts and is a fit one in which leave should be granted. We order accordingly.
5. The petitioner had been, it appears, allowed by the College authorities itself in the first instance and thereafter by the High Court to attend class subject to the decision of his claim. We direct that the same position will continue pending the disposal of this appeal. The petitioner shall furnish security in the sum of Rs. 2,000 towards costs.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer