Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 602 of 1979, decided on 11th August, 1981.
‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Martial Law Instruction No. 22‑‑Vested right‑‑ Petitioner given provisional and temporary authorisation for a Ration depot‑‑Petitioner subsequently was not found suitable for confirmation and it was decided to draw lots in accordance with Martial Law Instruction No.2‑‑Petitioner participated in drawing of lots and on failure, challenged decision through writ petition which was dismissed on ground that no vested right had accrued to him‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere because (i) no vested right had accrued to petitioner, (ii) change in system, if any, was a matter of policy not controlled by Courts, and (iii) petitioner, after having participated in drawing of lots, coin not later challenge result merely because he remained unsuccessful‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Riyasat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Neme for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 11th August, 1981.
The petitioner was given authorisation for a depot on a temporary basis subject to confirmation by the District Allotment Board. Subsequently, the District Allotment Board did not consider him ‑ suitable for confirmation and decided to draw lots in accordance with Martial Law Instruction No. 22. The petitioner also participated in the drawing of lots but was unsuccessful. He challenged the decision through Writ Petition No. 3264 of 1977 but the same was dismissed on 12=6‑1979 upon the view that no vested right had accrued to the petitioner as he had held the depot only on an ad hoc and temporary basis.
2. It is urged that as the petitioner's temporary authorisation had been given before the issuance of Martial Law Instruction No. 22, his case ought to have been, dealt with under the previous rules and not under the said instructions. We find no force in the contention, firstly, because no vested right had accrued to the petitioner by the temporary authorisation made in his favour, such as could be said to have been saved despite the change in the system; secondly, because the change in the system, if any, was a matter of policy which is not controlled by the Courts, and thirdly, because the petitioner, who has himself participated in the drawing of lots, cannot later challenge the result merely because he remained unsuccessful. The petition for grant of leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer