Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Syed ADNAN AMANAT VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Through FEDERAL MINISTER OF EDUCATION And 2 Others
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Mian Saqib Nisar, Chaudhry Ijaz Ahmed Title:Syed ADNAN AMANAT vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Through FEDERAL
MINISTER OF EDUCATION And 2 Others Case No.: Writ Petition No. 22714 of 1998 Intra-Court Appeal No. 792 of 2001 Date of Judgment:2002-01-24 Reported As: 2003 YLR 2410 Result: Appeal dismissed Judgment ORDER Appellant filed Constitution Petition No.22714 of 1998, with the following prayer:-- (I)Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, may be directed to stop the functioning of all the institutions established by respondent No. 3. (II)The respondent No.3 may be directed not to continue any sort of computer programmes/course/diploma or certi--ficate in his colleges/institutions unless strictly regularised legally in accordance with law. (III)The respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4, may also be directed to have a strict watch in future over the functions of the institutions established by respondent No.3 and in case of illegalities the institution may be closed permanently. (IV)The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 may also be directed to have a watch over respondent No.3, so he may not use the names of any Foreign University to trap the students. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by learned Single Judge with the observation that appellant should approach respondent No. 1. Hence the present I. C. A. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that private respondents committed fraud with the appellant as is evident from the prospect published by the private respondent; she further submits that private respondents have no authority to affiliate their institutions with the foreign institution without permission of the Government; she further submits that appellant is penalized by inaction of the private respondent and incurred huge expenditure by paying fees to the institutions, which was not validly recognized institutions, therefore, private respondents committed fraud with the appellant.
---
## Page 2
3. We have considered the contention of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. It is admitted fact that the appellant has already filed complaint against the private respondents, which is pending adjudication before the competent Court. Appellant was directed to approach respondent No. 1, for redressal of his grievance. In this view of the matter, remedy was not closed by this Court of the appellant. Learned Single Judge, refused to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, of learned Single Judge.