Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1981 CLC 591

MUHAMMAD ARIF vs LIAQUAT ALI AND 3 OTHERS

Citation1981 CLC 591
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Constitutional Petition No, 1201 of 1979
Date1980-05-03
Judge(s)Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim, S. A. Nusrat
ResultAppeal dismissed

' S. A. NUSRAT, J.-This petition has been brought to challenge the order dated 25-7-1919 passed by the Permanent Residence Certificate Appellate Committee, Respondent No 3 herein, dismissing the petitioner's appeal, which in turn was directed against the order of the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division dated I 1 the June 1979, cancelling the Permanent Residence Certificate earlier issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Dadu.

2. The petitioner claims to be the permanent resident of Radhan Mehari District Dadu having been born and educated there. He was granted a Permanent Residence Certificate by the District Magistrate, Dadu on 18-11-1976 and a certificate of domicile under the ' Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 on 27-3-1976. The petitioner, who had passed his Intermediate Science (Pre-Medical Examination) in the year 1976, in First Division, was, after necessary interview by the Selection Board, granted admission to First Year M. B., B. S. Class for the Session 1977-78. He was admitted to Chandka Medical College, Larkana and having completed his First Year, was transferred for studies to the Dow Medical College, Karachi where, by now, he has completed education for the Second Year M.

B., B. S. The respondent No. 1 challenged the grant of the Permanent Residence Certificate to the petitioner by means of an appeal filed to the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division on 30th October 1978. The Commissioner, in the first instance, solicited opinion from the Government of Sind on the point of limitation, as the appeal of the first respondent against the order of the District Magistrate, Dadu dated 1.i-11-1976, was, on the face of it, much beyond time. The Secretary to the Government, Home Department sought the opinion of the Law Department on the subject, and according to the advice given by the Law Division, as the period of limitation of 3) days, provided under rule 8 (1) of the Sind P. R. C. Rules, 1971, had already expired, and as section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to Sind P. R. C. Rules, 1971, the question of opening or re-opening of the old matters did not arise. Nonetheless, the appeal of the first respondent was entertained by the Commissioner, Hyderabad and the Permanent Residence Certificate issued to the petitioner was cancelled on 11- 6-1979. This led to the filing of a second appeal by the petitioner before the Committee set up under the Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971 which was dismissed as per impugned order.

3. This petition was taken up today along with two Miscellaneous Applications, one for the amendment of the petition and the other for stay, but Mr. Nooruddin Sarki, learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to us a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us happened to be a member, dated 9-4-1960, passed in Constitutional Petition No, D-1537/ 78 and other two connected petitions. The view taken in the said judgment is that the Committee set up under rule 8(3) of the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules comprising of three members had to jointly hear and sign its orders, and the issuance of order of the Committee under the signature of one of its members was without lawful authority. The order of the P. R. C. Committee was set aside by the Learned Division Bench on this short ground alone, and it was left open to the Committee to rehear the appeals afresh and decide the same according to law after giving notice to the parties concerned. The said judgment of the learned Division Bench is binding on us and Mr. Abdul Sattar Sheikh, learned Additional Advocate-General, who appeared on behalf of the respondents, had to accept this legal position.

4. In the circumstances, following the judgment of this Court in C. P.-D/1537 of 1978, the order of the third respondent dated 25-7-1979 is declared to have been passed without lawful authority, and the Petition is accepted with no order as to costs. However, it will, be open to the Committee to re- hear the appeal of the petitioner afresh and decide the same according to law after giving notice to the parties concerned.

Cited by 1 case

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