ABDUL REHMAN vs ABDUL GHAFOOR And 4 Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order of the Commissioner, Faisalabad, and restored an earlier order of the Deputy Commissioner regarding the reinstatement of the petitioner, Abdul Rehman, into service. The petitioner contends that the High Court erred in its decision, arguing that the Deputy Commissioner's original order was without jurisdiction and legally non-existent. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the respondent, Abdul Ghafoor, had challenged a government directive that had ordered the Commissioner to decide the case afresh, and that the respondent's constitutional petition should have been dismissed on the grounds of laches. The Supreme Court, finding that the contentions raised by the petitioner require further examination, granted leave to appeal. The Court ordered the appeal to be prepared on the existing record, while allowing the parties to file additional documents if necessary, to resolve the legal questions surrounding the jurisdiction of the authorities and the maintainability of the writ petition.
- Whether a writ petition can be maintained when it is hit by laches?
- Does a Deputy Commissioner have the jurisdiction to pass an order that is subsequently challenged in a writ petition?
- Can a High Court set aside an order of a Commissioner that was passed pursuant to a government directive?
ORDER
1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 19-1-1985, whereby writ petition of Abdul Ghafoor (respondent No.1) was accepted and the order passed by Commissioner, Faisalabad dated 10-7-1983.
2. Reinstating m service Abdur Rehman petitioner herein, was declared to be of no legal effect and restored the order dated 22-3-1982 passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
3. In support of this petition it is urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 22-3-1982, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad was without jurisdiction and legally non-existent and the High Court while ignoring the fact that respondent No.1 Abdul Ghafoor virtually challenged the order of the Government of the Punjab dated 28-12-?? Whereby the Commissioner, Faisalabad was directed to decide the case of the petitioner afresh on the appeal pending before the D.C. The writ petition notwithstanding the fact being hit by laches, the respondent No.1 was not entitled to the relief claimed in the Constitutional petition.
4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
5. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.1,000. The appeal is to be prepared on the same record at an early date, with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.