Al Wakeelo logo

Al Wakeelo

Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty

Initializing Secure Chambers

1989 SCMR 1512

Ch. MERAJUDDIN vs JOINT SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB

Petitioner: Ch. MERAJUDDIN VS Respondent: JOINT SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, DEPARTMENT and 2 others

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan Decision Date: 1989-03-22

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Saad Saood Jan Title:Ch. MERAJUDDIN vs JOINT SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB

COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, DEPARTMENT and 2 others Case No.: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,471 of 1984 Date of Judgment:1989-03-22 Reported As: 1989 SCMR 1512 Result: Leave refused Judgment ORDER ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioners Writ Petition. It had arisen out of dispute relating to and finding by the respondents (Co-operative Authorities) to the effect that the petitioner was a member of the Co- operative Society concerned relating to films. He challenged this finding and the consequences flowing therefrom in the High Court in its writ jurisdiction but without any success. Leave to appeal has now therefore been sought. Learned counsel has tried to seek reversal of the findings of fact rendered against the petitioner by the departmental authorities and affirmed by the High Court in the impugned judgment. After hearing him, at some length, we feel satisfied that the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. It is pertinent to note that the learned counsel has not been able to dislodge the finding by making reference to the relevant documents. The conclusions by the High Court are based, inter alia, on; resolution No,8, dated 12-4-1954 passed by the Managing Committee of the Society; and, resolution No,2 passed in the general meeting on 24-4-1954; as also the entry, dated 4-5-1954 in the ledger, showing that the petitioner had also paid membership fee of Rs,100. We accordingly find no justification for interference. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.

Related Legal Research & Directories