Find a Lawyer

ATTAULLAH ATTA versus GHULAM BASHIR MUGHAL

Appeal and Response to District M for Assistant Commissioners of the 42nd Constitutional Petition and Assistant Commissioner of Police, Superintendent of Police Reserve, for the Rules of Azad Jammu and Kashmir State Articles Rule 1980 R 7 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974). Appeal candidates for the candidates, the appellant was chosen at a specific seat while the respondent has secured security. According to its constitutional jurisdiction, it cannot be recommended from the High Court that the Public Service Commission recommends. Should be declared invalid in law on the basis that the domicile certificate is invalid. The competence of the constitutional petition was forced on the ground that the respondents available for treatment did not take advantage of these remedies, therefore, the constitutional petition could not be sustained before the High Court and the decision of the High Court could not be sustained. The respondent stated in his clarification that the constitutional petition was not effective enough to obtain a decision from the relevant authorities and that the recommendations of the Public Service Commission would become redundant respondents and could be further clarified. In addition to challenging the Domicile Certificate, the Public Service Recommendations also challenge the Commission C, which was only in the jurisdiction of the High Court, and this Court reasoning submitted by the High Court correctly acknowledged that the Domicile certificate obtained by the Appellant was invalid and that the Appellant was a resident of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Never was An important and appropriate dispute regarding the Domicile Certificate and its appointment was bilateral issues and the constitutional petition was the only effective way for the appellant to claim that he was a member of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. tax advocates from Panjgur lawyer