ABDUL HAMEED vs CHIEF MINISTER. PUNJAB And 2 Other
This petition for leave to appeal was brought against the refusal of the High Court to grant interim relief to the petitioner during the pendency of his writ petition involving a service matter. The core legal question was whether the High Court is bound in law to grant interim relief merely upon admitting a writ petition for regular hearing. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that there is no such command in law and that the High Court was fully justified in declining interim relief to avoid stifling the administrative machinery of the Government. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that the grant of interim relief in service matters during the pendency of a writ petition is discretionary and the High Court is not bound to issue it simply because a petition has been admitted for regular hearing.
- Is the High Court bound in law to grant interim relief when a writ petition is admitted for regular hearing?
- Can the refusal of interim relief by the High Court in a service matter be a valid ground for grant of leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J: --This petition for leave to appeal brings under challenge the refusal by the High Court to grant interim relief to the petitioner during the pendency of his writ petition.
2. After hearing the petitioner, who has appeared in person, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal either on merits or on the ground that the Writ Petition having been admitted for regular hearing, the High Court was bound to grant him interim relief. There is no such command in law. The High Court was fully justified not to stifle the administrative machinery of the Government in service matter by issuing the claimed interim relief. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.