Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL KHALIL VS Respondent: MANZOOR AHMADHonorable Justice BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKHRaja Muhammad Hanif Khan,Ghulam Mustafa Mughal
1998 M L D 310
1998 M L D 310
[Supreme Court (AJ&K)]
Present: Basharat Ahmad Shaikh and Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi, JJ
ABDUL KHALIL---Appellant
versus
MANZOOR AHMAD and 5 others---Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1997, decided on 19th March, 1997.
(On appeal from the order of the High Court dated 5-12-1996 in Writ Petition No.322 of 1996).
Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984---
----R. 34---High Court procedure---Notice to adversary---Recording of reasons for any order---Order of High Coup whereby order of Ombudsman was suspended subject to objection from the other side without issuing notice to opposite-party and without recording reasons for the same, was not sustainable for that was in violation of R. 34 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984.
Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan for Appellant.
Ghulam Mustafa Mughal for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 19th March, 1997.
JUDGMENT
BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---Respondent No.l Manzoor Ahmad, filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the order passed by the learned Mohtasib of Azad Jammu and Kashmir whereby he directed the Chief Conservator of Forests to relieve him from the post of Forest Guard and to appoint the present appellant Abdul Khalil in his place. He also prayed for a stay order. The case came up for preliminary hearing on 5th of December, 1996 before a learned Judge in the High Court who passed the following order:--
"A copy of the petition shall be sent to respondents 5 and 6 for parawise comments.
The impugned order passed by the learned Ombudsman on 7-1-1996 shall remain suspended subject to objection from other side. To come up on 12-1-1997."
Obtaining leave of the Court, Abdul Khalil has filed this appeal to challenge the second paragraph of the order by which the order passed by the learned Mohtasib was suspended subject to objection form the other side.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the order under appeal is not sustainable. Firstly because the order has been passed in violation of Rule 34 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 inasmuch as no notice was given to the opposite party before passing the order nor was any reason recorded for not doing so. The second reason is that the order does not show as to why it was necessary to suspend operation of the order passed by the learned Mohtasib. We, therefore, accept the appeal with costs and vacate the second paragraph of the order of the High Court by which the operation of order passed by the learned Mohtasib was suspended.
C.M.S./204/SC(AJ&K) Appeal accepted.