Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM HUSSAIN VS Respondent: UNION COUNCIL KHOKHRAPARHonorable Justice ABDUL HAMEED DOGARAbdul Rahim Kazi,Nemo
2004 P L C (C
2004 P L C (C.S.) 902
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J., Abdul Hameed Dogar and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
GHULAM HUSSAIN
versus
UNION COUNCIL KHOKHRAPAR through Secretary Union Council and another
. Civil Petition No.467 of 2004, decided on 3rd March, 2004.
(On appeal from the order dated 11‑2‑2004 of the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad passed in C.P. No.D‑264 of 2003).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 212(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Court‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Petition for direction to High Court for early disposal of case‑‑‑Maintainability of such petition‑‑‑Petition was pending before High Court and no order of any sort had been passed so far‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was maintainable under Art. 185(3) of the Constitution only against any judgment, decree, order or sentence of High Court‑‑‑No substantial question of public importance within the contemplation of Art.212(3) of the Constitution was made out to justify grant of leave‑‑ Petition was dismissed.
Abdul Rahim Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing; 3rd March, 2004. .
ORDER
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.‑‑‑Through this petition, petitioner Ghulam Hussain has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution") for grant of leave to appeal on the ground that Constitutional Petition No.D‑264 of 2003 filed by him before High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad is not being heard since last five months wherein he has challenged the resolution dated 15‑9‑2003 whereby vote of no confidence was passed against him through secret ballot and in consequence whereof he has been unseated and notification about his removal has been issued by the respondent.
2. Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that since the Constitutional petition filed by petitioner challenging his removal by way of vote of no confidence is pending adjudication since 21‑9‑2003 before the High Court and is being adjourned without any justification so much so even interim relief is neither granted nor refused. Thus finding no other alternative, the petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
3. Admittedly, the petition is pending before the High Court and no order of any sort has been passed so far. It is only against any judgment, decree; order or sentence of High Court petition for leave to appeal is maintainable under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. Moreover no substantial question of public importance within the contemplation of clause (3) of Article 212 of the Constitution has been made out to justify grant of leave in this case. As such, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
M.H./G‑10/S Petition dismissed.