Pakistan Case Law
1997 SCMR 170

RAFIQUE AHMAD CHAUDHRY vs AHMAD NAWAZ MALIK And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1997 SCMR 170
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1991-L of 1996 Writ Petition No. 16418 of
Date-
Judge(s)Ajmal Mian
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, which suspended a transfer order of the petitioner while admitting a writ petition filed by respondent No. 1. The core legal question before the Supreme Court concerns the competency of the High Court to entertain a writ petition regarding a transfer order in light of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and whether the High Court was justified in suspending the transfer order pending the adjudication of the writ petition. The Supreme Court, finding merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding the potential lack of jurisdiction and the impropriety of the interim relief granted, granted leave to appeal. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned order of the High Court suspending the transfer was suspended until the final disposal of the appeal. The case establishes that the propriety of granting interim relief, such as the suspension of a transfer order, in matters potentially barred by Article 212, requires rigorous judicial scrutiny.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is a writ petition challenging a transfer order competent before the High Court in view of Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Is the High Court justified in suspending a transfer order while admitting a writ petition in a service matter?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
leave to appealwrit jurisdictionservice mattertransfer orderinterim reliefconstitutional barArticle 212

ORDER

AJMAL MIAN, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 16-9-1996 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 16418 of 1996 suspending the transfer order of the petitioner while admitting the aforesaid writ petition of respondent No. 1.

The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.

2. In support of the above petition, it has been urged by Mr. Muhammad Hanif Niazi, learned Advocate Supreme Court that prima facie the aforementioned writ petition was not competent before the High Court in view of Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and that even if the High Court had admitted the writ petition, it was not a fit case for suspending the transfer order of the petitioner. In support of his above submission, Mr. Niazi has relied upon an unreported order of this Court dated 24-4-1996 in the case of Ayyaz Anjum v.

Government of Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Department through its Secretary and others 1997 SCMR 169 besides on the case of Munshi Muhammad Azam v. A.C. And others 1996 PLC (C.S.) 415.

3. We are inclined to grant leave to consider the question, whether the High Court was justified in suspending the transfer order in a writ petition. Leave is, accordingly, granted. The impugned order is suspended till the disposal of the appeal arising out of the above petition which should be listed for regular hearing at an early date.

Cited by 19 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.