Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF SHAH versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

In the nature of quo warrants, the High Court rejected section 44 and 42 constitutional application of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act of 1974 on the ground that the applicant was of no good standing and that the applicant was not in this office. Did not want what they intended. The mere fact that the High Court formed its opinion on the basis of the vacated document does not indicate that the petitioner was not irrelevant. The High Court itself observed in its unclean order that no public A warrant may also be filed by a member. Therefore, the question of whether the applicant will get anything, was irrelevant and could not be the purpose of excluding the constitutional petition, the order of the High Court in removing the constitutional petition was, thus, volatile and vacant. The liability case was remanded for a fresh verdict on merit divorce advocates from Mehar lawyer