Scribd
Upload
30 views2 pages

PLD1970SC158

The Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled on Civil Appeal No. 61-D of 1968, emphasizing that the High Court must provide a detailed judicial order when dismissing petitions that raise substantial legal questions. The Court found the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition inadequate as it failed to demonstrate proper consideration of the issues involved. The ruling reinforces the necessity for judicial orders to articulate the reasoning behind decisions, as mandated by the Constitution.

Uploaded by

adv.mbutt
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
30 views2 pages

PLD1970SC158

The Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled on Civil Appeal No. 61-D of 1968, emphasizing that the High Court must provide a detailed judicial order when dismissing petitions that raise substantial legal questions. The Court found the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition inadequate as it failed to demonstrate proper consideration of the issues involved. The ruling reinforces the necessity for judicial orders to articulate the reasoning behind decisions, as mandated by the Constitution.

Uploaded by

adv.mbutt
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Citation(s): 1970 SLD 54 = 1970 PLD 158

Supreme Court of Pakistan

Civil Appeal No. 61-D of 1968, decision dated: 24th December 1969. (On appeal
from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the
1st April 1968, in Petition No. 103 of 1968)

AUTHOR(S): HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J., ABDUS SATTAR AND M. R. KHAN, JJ

GOURANGA MOHAN SIKDAR


VS
THE CONTROLLER OF IMPORT AND EXPORT AND 2 OTHERS

Akhtar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) S. S. Hoda, Advocate-on-


Record for Appellant. Asrarul Hossain, Advocate General East Pakistan instructed
by A.W. Malilk, Advocate-on-Record

Constitution of Pakistan (1962),

Art. 98-High Court disposing of petition (raising substantial question) must pass a speaking
judicial order manifesting by itself that Court applied its mind to issues Involved-Petition
dismissed by short order "rejected as there is no substance in It"-Order, held, not proper.

A writ petition filed in the High Court raised a serious question of law as to whether as a
consequence of declaration granted by the High Court itself in a previous writ petition, the
petitioner was entitled to be restored to the position in which he would have been if the
authority concerned had not passed the order impugned in the previous petition. The High
Court, however, dismissed the petition by a short order "application is rejected as there is
no substance in it". The Supreme Court expressed its regret and:

Held, such an order, does not disclose a proper application of the mind of the High Court to
the merits of the case that was before it. In view of the fact that a substantial question was
raised by the applicant invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, it was the undoubted
duty of the High Court to state what the precise point raised by the applicant was and the
grounds on which it was rejected. The Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out that "A
judicial order must be a speaking order manifesting by itself that the Court has applied its
mind to the resolution of the issues involved for their proper adjudication" because "litigants
who bring their disputes to the law Courts with the incidental hardships and expenses
involved do expect a patient and a judicious treatment of their cases and their
determination by proper orders". These repeated observations of the Supreme Court are
not receiving the attention that they should by the High Court in spite of the clear mandate
contained in Article 63 of the Constitution, which is still applicable "that any decision of the
Supreme Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or
enunciates a principle of law, is binding on all other Courts in Pakistan". The above-
mentioned decisions did enunciate a principle of law which it was the duty of the High Court
to follow.

Adamjee Lute Mills Limited v. The Province of East Pakistan P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 272 and
Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan arid others 20 D L R 221 (S C) ref.

You might also like