Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ASAD I. A. KHAN VS Respondent: FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Jawwad S. Khawaja, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Amir Hani Muslim Title: ASAD I. A. KHAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others Case No.: Civil Petition No.1644 of 2013 Date of Judgment:2013-11-06 Reported As: 2014 SCMR 320 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order dated 6-9-2013 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner has been partly allowed. 2. It is to be noted that the petitioner instituted a writ petition challenging the appointment of Amjad Ali Khan, respondent No.5, as Managing Director, NESPAK, along with the application for interim relief with the following prayer:- "It is respectfully prayed that the operation of the impugned notification of 15-8-2013 by the Company Secretary, NESPAK and decision dated 15-8-2013 of the Board of Directors, NESPAK may be suspended till the decision of the writ petition." 3. The learned High Court while examining the case of the petitioner and relying upon the principle that "the relief when sought is leading towards a final assessment, such relief should not be granted at B this stage", the approach of the learned High Court was correct. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the respondent No.5 has been appointed as Managing Director, NESPAK vide notification dated 15-8-2013, in violation of directions of this Court dated 10-7-2013, therefore, interference is called for. 5. We are not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner, because adjudication on merits, as has been stressed by learned High Court, would necessarily lead to decision of the writ petition pending before it finally, which is not the object of the law, in view of the principle noted hereinabove. 6. Therefore, under the circumstances, no interference in the impugned order is called for. Thus for the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.