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.
High Court Appeal No.136 of 1986, decided on 30th September, 1986.
---Art.199--Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3--High Court appeal against order passed in constitutional petition--Appellant, by filing constitutional petition had challenged notice issued by respondent authority whereby appellant was asked to hold referendum in appellant's Mill--Such notice subsequently having been withdrawn by respondent authority, Single Judge of High Court treating withdrawal thereof, as success of constitutional petition, disposed of petition accordingly- Appellant Mill which succeeded in its object by order of Single Judge of High Court passed in constitutional petition, held, could hardly consider itself to be aggrieved by that order--High Court appeal filed by appellant against such order was dismissed with observation that withdrawal of notice could be challenged by appellant if appellant could prove infringement of any vested right or breach of any law in that matter.
Ch. Rashid Ahmad for Appellant.
-The appellant has felt aggrieved against the orders dated 1,0-7-1986 passed by the Honourable Single Judge whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellant was treated as having succeeded and stood disposed of as such.
The appellant had challenged the notice which had been issued by respondent No.1 for holding of referendum of Dawood Cotton Mills C. B.A. but on the relevant day the Registrar's representative appeared and withdrew the said notice. The respondents 4 and 3 had objected to the withdrawal of the said notice but the learned Judge did not agree with their objections and treated the withdrawal of notice as the success of the petition.
We are of the view that the appellant could hardly consider itself to be aggrieved by that order. The order was made on a technical basis inasmuch as the very notice which had been challenged in the petition had been withdrawn by tae respondent and, therefore, the obvious result of that withdrawal of the notice was that the petition had succeeded in its object and, therefore, the learned Judge made that observation. But that observation does not mean that the appellant cannot challenge the withdrawal of the notice for holding of the referendum for C . B. A . of Dawood Cotton Mills if they can show any vested right and breach of law in that matter. In this view of the matter this appeal is dismissed in limine. The C.M.As are also dismissed. The Office Objection has now become infructuous.
H.B.T./D-6/K
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer