Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2006 SCMR 875

IBRAHIM & SONS vs PUNJAB TEXTBOOK BOARD and otherss

Citation2006 SCMR 875
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,941/L of 2000
Date2003-03-05
Judge(s)Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Tanvir Ahmed Khan
ResultLeave refused

ORDER

1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 11-2-2000 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Writ Petition No,2170 of 2000 filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine.

2. ' The facts briefly narrated are that Professor Shabbir Ahmed, Director (Technical) of the Punjab Text Book Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, retired with effect from 4-6-1999. The Board in the circumstances passed an order that respondent No,3 will look after the work of Director (Technical) in addition to his own work till the appointment of the new incumbent. Subsequent thereto, respondent No,3 imposed a penalty of Rs,11,500 upon the petitioner who is stated to be a Publisher with the Board. This order of imposition of penalty was assailed by the petitioner before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through the above writ petition, which has been dismissed in limine through the order, dated 11-2-2000, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.

3. ' We have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. Section 26 of the West Pakistan Textbook Board Ordinance, 1962, is a complete answer to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner which mandated that no act or proceeding of the Board or the Advisory Council shall be invalidated merely by reason of the existence of a vacancy on the Board or the Advisory Council, or by reason of any irregularity in the appointment of any member of the Board or the Advisory Council. Apart from this if the contention of the learned counsel is accepted, it would totally frustrate the resolution of the Board which authorized respondent No,3 to look after the work of Director (Technical) as a stop-gap arrangement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

4. ' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed and .

Cited by 2 cases

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch