Kashif
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Kashif as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 4,279
- Pages: 26
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
I.C.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. 5080/2002
Kashif Ghafoor Qadri etc.
Vs.
Chairman PCATP etc.
INDEX S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES 1
Urgent Form
2
Stamp Papers
3
Memo of Appeal.
4
Copy of judgment.
A
5
Copy of writ petition.
B
6
Copy of Directory-90.
C
7
Cop of letter.
D
8
Dispensation Application
9
Affidavit
10
Stay application.
11
Affidavit.
12
Power of Attorney APPELLANTS
Dated: __________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
I.C.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. 5080/2002
1.
Kashif Ghafoor Qadri S/o Abdul Ghafoor Qadri, caste Rajput, R/o H. No. 15/2, 60 Feet Road, New Multan.
2.
Javed Iqbal S/o Haroon Ali, caste Mughal, R/o Javed Associates, opposite Muhammad Arcade, 2nd Floor Mian Mansion, Khanewal Road, Multan.
3.
Naseer Ahmad Qureshi S/o Saeed Ahmad Qureshi, caste Qureshi, R/o Nai Abadi Gali Masjid Wali, Old Shujabad Road, Madina Town, Multan.
4.
Abduz Zahid S/o Abdul Khalid, caste Sheikh, R/o 80-Sultan Abad, Gulgasht Colony, Multan.
5.
Muhammad Zahid Akbar S/o Muhammad Akbar Rana, caste Rana, R/o 90-Timber Market, Multan.
6.
Muhammad Tarhir S/o Khushi Muhammad, 259 Mohallah Syed Wala, Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan.
7.
Muhammad Mujib S/o Muhammad Siddique, R/o H. No. 1275, Ward No. 3, Mohallah Kamangran, Hussain Agahi, Multan.
8.
Malik Muhammad Bakhsh S/o Malik Ghulam Rasool, caste Jat, R/o 2-Babar Colony, Police Lines, near Babar Building, Multan.
9.
Muhammad Asif Awan S/o Muhammad Ashraf Awan, caste Awan, R/o H. No. 2401/9, Mohallah Sultani Koocha Islami, O/s Lohari Gate, Multan. ……APPELLANTS
VERSUS 1.
Pakistan Council for Architects & Town Planners, through its Registrar.
2.
Chairman, Pakistan Council for Architects & Town Planners, Suit No. 111, First Floor, RSM Square E-1 Shaheed-e-Millat Road, Karachi.
3.
Tehsil city Municipal Administration, Multan, through City Nazim.
4.
Tehsil Sadar Municipal Administration, Multan, through Tehsile Nazim. …RESPONDENTS
APPEAL U/s 3 of Law Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972, against the judgment dated 17.10.02, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Chamber of this Hon’ble Court at Multan, resulting the dismissal of writ petition of the appellants/petitioners. Claim in Appeal: To set aside the impugned judgment and to accept the writ petition. Court Fee: As required under the law is affixed.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations.
2. That the ARCHITECTS AND TOWN PLANNERS were working haphazardly and to regulate the architectural and town planning work, a law namely Pakistan Council of Architects & Town Planner Ordinance 1983 was promulgated. This ordinance categorized the qualified and non-qualified architects and town planners; and a safeguard to the rights of both was provided through this ordinance. The Pakistan Council of Architects and Town Planners is a statutory body constituted under this ordinance. 3. That under section 16 (1) (a) of the ordinance, it was incumbent upon the Council to maintain this separate register in prescribed manner for the Architects & Town Planners possessing recognized qualifications and under section 16 (1) (b) to prepare two separate lists for the persons not possessing the qualifications as per section 16 (1) (a). The respondents No. 1 & 2 in compliance of section 8 (a) & 16 (1) (b) registered the applicants falling under section 16 (1) (b) and published a list first time in 1989. This list includes the Diploma Holders/Draftsmen of different periods and Naqsha Nawis(
) as well.
4. That the appellants are Draftsmen/Diploma Holders and working as non-qualified Architects/Town Planners. The appellants were enlisted/categorized by the respondent No. 3 and a fee as per schedule was paid to respondent No. 3 by the appellants and there was smooth working. Meanwhile the respondent No. 1 addressed a letter to respondent No. 3 in which, it was pointed out that the professionals, not enlisted with respondents No. 1 & 2 shall not be allowed to work. But the respondent No. 3 continued to receive the plans for approval. Now in response of this letter the respondent No. 3 framed their bye-laws. 5. That the appellants, without going deep into the controversy with respondents, submitted applications to the respondent No. 1 for enlistment as required under section 8 (a), 16 (1) (b) and 16 (2) as well. These applications were for the issuance of application form for registration and appellants desired to pay the prescribed fee.
These applications were duly received by the respondent No. 1, but in response, the respondent No. 1 refused to issue application form with reference to some notification. The respondent No. 1, even not bothered to send a copy of notification referred in the letters. It is pertinent to point out that no such notification is in existence upto the knowledge of the appellants. 6. That a great miscarriage of justice was caused by the letters and acts of respondents, so the grievance was agitated through the constitutional petition which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the Chamber, vide judgment dated 17.10.02. The certified copy of same with copy of petition is Annex “A & B”. 7. That the judgment dated 17.10.02 is impugned inter-alia on the following: GROUNDS i)
That the impugned judgment is against the principles of natural justice and law of equity.
ii)
That the impugned judgment is against the law and facts of the case.
iii)
That the acts of respondents and the impugned judgment are against the essence and objects enumerated in Article 2-A of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
iv)
That the reply of respondents is illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, capricious, void ab-initio and un-warranted under the law. On the other hand, it is the clear-cut violation of statutory provisions and in conflict with the ordinance (ibid). The intention of the legislation was quite clear, when section 8 (a) & 16 were inducted. In fact this assertion was a safeguard for the professionals having lesser qualification than qualified architects and town planners.
v)
That the comments submitted in the constitutional petition were against the facts. The respondents No. 1 & 2
enlisted
the
non-qualified
professionals
(draftsmen/diploma-holders) after the alleged cut-date i.e. 31.12.89 in the shape of Directory-90 while another directory for the year 1992 was published by respondents No. 1 & 2 is not available for the time being. Photocopy of Directory-90 is Annex “C”. vi)
That the conduct, acts and steps taken by the respondents are illegal, unlawful and unwarranted under the law, because the respondent No. 1 had already issued a letter stating thereby that the P.C.A.T.P. Ordinance, 1983 does not debar the petitioners to continue the work as “DRAFTSMEN”. Copy of letter is Annex “D”.
vii)
That the concealment of facts on the part of respondents No. 1 & 2 depicts their malafide and ulterior motive towards the petitioners.
viii)
That the acts and conduct of the respondents and the impugned judgment as well are in the collusion with articles 4, 18 & 25 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
ix)
That the Hon’ble Single Judge decided the case in haste and without taking the notice of prayer clause of constitutional petition.
x)
That the appellants are earning bread & butter for their families and now going to be penniless due to the conduct and behaviour of respondents. This situation is seriously attacking to the fundamental rights of the appellants, which warranted legal action in this regard.
xi)
That great miscarriage of justice is caused to the appellants due to the impugned judgment.
In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the impugned judgment may please be set aside and the constitutional petition may please be accepted. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may graciously be awarded in the interest of justice and equity. Humble Appellants, Dated: ________
Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
Certificate: Certified as per instructions of the client, this is the first Intra Court appeal on the subject matter. No such appeal has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. _________/2002 In I.C.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. 5080/2002
Kashif Ghafoor Qadri etc.
Vs.
Chairman PCATP etc.
APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. =========================================
Respectfully Sheweth: That certified copies of Annexes “C & D” are not available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. APPLICANTS, Dated: __________ Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. _________/2002 In I.C.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. 5080/2002
Kashif Ghafoor Qadri etc.
Vs.
Chairman PCATP etc.
APPLICATION U/S 5 OF LIMITATION ACT, 1908. AFFIDAVIT of: Kashif Ghafoor Qadri S/o Abdul Ghafoor Qadri, caste Rajput, R/o Street No. 10, Main Bazar, Shah Faisal Colony, Ghaus Pura, Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this ____day of November 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. _________/2002 In I.C.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. 5080/2002
Kashif Ghafoor Qadri etc.
Vs.
Chairman PCATP etc.
APPLICATION U/S 151 C.P.C. FOR INTERIM RELIEF. Sheweth as under: 1.
That the contents of main I.C.A. may be treated as the integral part and parcel of this application.
2.
That the category of applicants is drawing the site plans, maps and Naqshas (
) for a long time and their skill is
going to equalize their lesser qualifications. 3.
That the applicants have also been working in the same field since last 5/6 years successfully and there is no complaint at all in this respect.
4.
That the respondents No. 3 & 4 were always according sanction and approval of site plans, maps and Naqshas (
)
submitted by the applicants, but stopped the same, under the instructions/directions of respondents No. 1 & 2. 5.
That the applicants tried to get themselves enlisted under the law, but respondents No. 1 & 2 have refused to issue the application forms after receiving the prescribed fee.
6.
That the applicants are earning bread and butter for their families from this job and since last two months, the
applicants have become penniless due to the act and conduct of respondents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the respondents No. 3 & 4 may please be directed to entertain and approve the site plans, maps and Naqshas (
) submitted by the applicants, till the final
applicants decision of the main petition. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may also be granted to the applicants. APPLICANTS, Dated: __________
Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
I.C.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. 5080/2002
Kashif Ghafoor Qadri etc.
Vs.
Chairman PCATP etc.
AFFIDAVIT of: Kashif Ghafoor Qadri S/o Abdul Ghafoor Qadri, caste Rajput, R/o Street No. 10, Main Bazar, Shah Faisal Colony, Ghaus Pura, Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled I.C.A. are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this 18th day of November, 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT
Sr. No. 1
Name Kashif Qadri
Father’s name
Ghafoor Abdul Ghafoor Qadri
Caste Rajput
Haroon Ali
Educational qualification Matric
Technical qualification Civil Draftsman
Course duration 2 years
Session
Board
8-1995
Matric
Civil Draftsman
2 years
2-1991
Matric
Civil Draftsman
2 years
7-1991
Matric
Civil Draftsman
2 years
0-1989
Matric
Civil Draftsman
2 years
10-1996
Matric
Civil Draftsman
2 years
8-1995
Punjab Boar of Technical Education, Lahore Punjab Boar of Technical Education, Lahore Directorate of Manpower & Training Trade Testing Board, Punjab Punjab Boar of Technical Education, Lahore Directorate of Manpower & Training Trade Testing Board, Punjab Punjab Boar of Technical Education, Lahore Directorate of Manpower & Training Trade Testing Board, Punjab Directorate of Manpower & Training Trade Testing Board, Punjab Technical Training Centre, Karachi,/Karachi Poly Technical Institute, Karachi. Punjab Boar of Technical Education, Lahore
2
Javed Iqbal
3
Muhammad Akhtar Muhammad Hussain Lodhi Lodhi
4
Naseer Qureshi
5
Abduz Zahid
6
Muhammad Zahid Muhammad Akbar Rana
7
Muhammad Tahir
Khushi Muhammad
F.A.
Civil Draftsman
2 years
3-1999
8
Muhammad Mujib
Muhammad Siddique
Matric
Civil Draftsman
1 year
4-1994
9
Malik Muhammad Malik Ghulam Rasool Bakhsh
Matric
Civil Draftsman
2 years
0-1971
10
Muhammad Awan
Matric
Civil Engineering
3 years
12-1996
Hussain Lodhi
Ahmad Saeed Ahmad Qureshi Qureshi Abdul Khalid
Asif Muhammad Awan
Sheikh
Akbar Rana
Jat
Ashraf Awan
Experience 7 years 11 years 11 years
13 years 6 years
7 years 3 years
8 years
32 years
6 years
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
R.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. _________/2002 M. Akhtar Hussain Lodhi S/o Muhammad Hussain Lodhi, caste Lodhi, R/o Piran Sahib Colony No. 2, M.D.A. Road, near Pul Bararan, Multan. ……APPLICANT
VERSUS 1. Pakistan Council for Architects & Town Planners, through its Registrar. 2. Chairman, Pakistan Council for Architects & Town Planners, Suit No. 111, First Floor, RSM Square E-1 Shaheed-e-Millat Road, Karachi. 3. Tehsil city Municipal Administration, Multan, through City Nazim. 4. Tehsil Sadar Municipal Administration, Multan, through Tehsile Nazim. …RESPONDENTS
Review application U/s 114 C.P.C. against the judgment dated 17.10.02 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, Lahore High Court, Bench at Multan, by which the constitutional petition of the applicant was dismissed.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations. 2. That the ARCHITECTS AND TOWN PLANNERS were working haphazardly and to regulate the architectural and town planning work, a law namely Pakistan Council of Architects & Town Planner Ordinance 1983 was promulgated. This ordinance categorized the qualified and non-qualified architects and town planners; and a safeguard to the rights of both was provided through this ordinance. The Pakistan Council of Architects and Town Planners is a statutory body constituted under this ordinance. 3. That under section 16 (1) (a) of the ordinance, it was incumbent upon the Council to maintain this separate register in prescribed manner for the Architects & Town Planners possessing recognized qualifications and under section 16 (1) (b) to prepare two separate lists for the persons not possessing the qualifications as per section 16 (1) (a). The respondents No. 1 & 2 in compliance of section 8 (a) & 16 (1) (b) registered the applicants falling under section 16 (1) (b) and published a list first time in 1989. This list includes the Diploma Holders/Draftsmen of different periods and Naqsha Nawis(
) as well.
4. That the applicant is Draftsmen/Diploma Holder and working as non-qualified Architect/Town Planner. The applicant was enlisted/categorized by the respondent No. 3 and a fee as per schedule was paid to respondent No. 3 by the applicant and there was smooth working. Meanwhile the respondent No. 1 addressed a letter to respondent No. 3 in which, it was pointed out that the professionals, not enlisted with respondents No. 1 & 2 shall not be allowed to work. But the respondent No. 3 continued to receive the plans for approval. Now in response of this letter the respondent No. 3 framed their bye-laws. 5. That the applicant, without going deep into the controversy with respondents,
submitted
application
to
the
respondent
No. 1 for enlistment as required under section 8 (a), 16 (1) (b) and 16 (2) as well. These applications were for the issuance of application form for registration and appellants desired to pay the prescribed fee. This application was duly received by the respondent No. 1, but in response, the respondent No. 1 refused to issue application form with reference to some notification. The respondent No. 1, even not bothered to send a copy of notification referred in the letters. 6. That a great miscarriage of justice was caused by the letters and acts of respondents, so the grievance was agitated through the constitutional petition which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the Chamber, vide judgment dated 17.10.02. The certified copy of same with copy of petition is Annex “A & B”. 7. That the applicant seeks review of the judgment inter-alia on the following: GROUNDS i)
That the reply and comments of respondents are illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, capricious, void ab-initio and unwarranted under the law. On the other hand, it is the clear-cut violation of statutory provisions and in conflict with the ordinance (ibid). The intention of the legislation was quite clear, when section 8 (a) & 16 were inducted. In fact this assertion was a safeguard for the professionals having lesser qualification than qualified architects and town planners.
ii)
That the comments submitted in the constitutional petition were against the facts. The respondents No. 1 &
2
enlisted
the
non-qualified
professionals
(draftsmen/diploma-holders) after the alleged cut-date i.e. 31.12.89 in the shape of Directory-90 while another directory for the year 1992 was published by respondents No. 1 & 2 is not available for the time being. Photocopy of Directory-90 is Annex “C”.
iii)
That the conduct, acts and steps taken by the respondents are illegal, unlawful and unwarranted under the law, because the respondent No. 1 had already issued a letter stating thereby that the P.C.A.T.P. Ordinance, 1983 does not debar the petitioners to continue the work as “DRAFTSMEN”. Copy of letter is Annex “D”.
iv)
That the applicant passed one year draftsman course on 24.10.1989 from Technical Training Centre Multan and joined Akhtar Associates which was working since 1981. On 27th of July, 1991 the applicant successfully completed two years course of Draftsman (civil) from the Govt. Vocational Institute (Boys) Bahawalpur. In this situation, the applicant successfully met with the conditions described in Section-28 (ibid). Copies of Educational Certificates with copy of license are Annexes “E, F & G”.
v)
That the respondents No. 3 & 4, when known as Municipal Corporation, Multan, the Deputy Mayor of said corporation issued a certificate in respect of working at competence of the applicant which is Annex “H”.
vi)
That the concealment of facts on the part of respondents No. 1 & 2 depicts their malafide and ulterior motive towards the petitioners.
vii)
That the acts and conduct of the respondents and the impugned judgment as well are in the collusion with articles 4, 18 & 25 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
viii) That great miscarriage of justice is caused to the applicant due to the impugned judgment.
In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the impugned judgment may please be viewed and the constitutional petition may please be accepted. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may graciously be awarded in the interest of justice and equity. Humble Appellant, Dated: ________ Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
Certificate: Certified as per instructions of the client, this is the first Review Application on the subject matter. No such application has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
R.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. _________/2002 M. Akhtar Hussain Lodhi Vs. Chairman PCATP etc. INDEX S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES 1
Urgent Form
2
Stamp Paper
3
Review application
4
Affidavit
5
Copy of judgment.
A
6
Copy of writ petition.
B
7
Copy of Directory-90.
C
8
Copy of letter.
D
9
Copies of certificate and license.
10
Copy of certificate
11
Dispensation Application
12
Affidavit
13
Stay application.
14
Affidavit.
15
Power of Attorney
PAGES
E,F,G H
APPLICANT, Dated: __________ Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
C.M. No. _________/2002 In R.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. _________/2002 M. Akhtar Hussain Lodhi Vs. Chairman PCATP etc.
APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. =========================================
Respectfully Sheweth: That certified copies of Annexes “C to H” are not available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. APPLICANTS, Dated: __________ Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
R.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. _________/2002 M. Akhtar Hussain Lodhi Vs. Chairman PCATP etc. REVIEW APPLICATION. AFFIDAVIT of: M. Akhtar Hussain Lodhi S/o Muhammad Hussain Lodhi, caste Lodhi, R/o Piran Sahib Colony No. 2, M.D.A. Road, near Pul Bararan, Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled review application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____day of November 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
C.M. No. _________/2002 In R.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. _________/2002 M. Akhtar Hussain Lodhi Vs. Chairman PCATP etc. APPLICATION U/S 151 C.P.C. FOR INTERIM RELIEF. Sheweth as under: 1. That the contents of main Review Application may be treated as the integral part and parcel of this application. 2. That the category of applicant is drawing the site plans, maps and Naqshas (
) for a long time and their skill is going
to equalize their lesser qualifications. 3. That the applicant has also been working in the same field since last 5/6 years successfully and there is no complaint at all in this respect. 4. That the respondents No. 3 & 4 were always according sanction and approval of site plans, maps and Naqshas (
) submitted
by
under
the
applicant,
but
stopped
the
same,
the
instructions/directions of respondents No. 1 & 2. 5. That the applicant tried to get himself enlisted under the law, but respondents No. 1 & 2 have refused to issue the application forms after receiving the prescribed fee.
6. That the applicant is earning bread and butter for his family from this job and since last two months, the applicant has become penniless due to the act and conduct of respondents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the respondents No. 3 & 4 may please be directed to entertain and approve the site plans, maps and Naqshas (
) submitted by the applicant, till
the final applicant decision of the main petition. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may also be granted to the applicant. APPLICANT, Dated: __________
Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. _________/2002 In I.C.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. 5080/2002
Kashif Ghafoor Qadri etc.
Vs.
Chairman PCATP etc.
APPLICATION U/S 5 OF LIMITATION ACT, 1908.
Sheweth as under: 1. That the contents of main I.C.A. may be treated as the integral part and parcel of this application. 2. That the judgment in W.P. No. 5080/02 was announced on 17.10.02, while applicants applied for certified copy on 19.10.02. The certified copy was prepared on 31.10.02 and on the same day it was delivered to the applicants and the I.C.A. was filed on 20.11.02. The calculation is as under: Date of judgment:
17.10.02
Date of filing:
20.11.02
Total days:
33
Days consumed by copy branch: 13 Balance:
20
3. That the limitation for filing of appeal under article 151 of Limitation Act is 20 days. By this reason the appeal seems to be
within limitation. However, by the method of “inclusion and exclusion” of days, it may be barred by time for one day. 4. That the instant I.C.A. was ready for filing on 18.11.02, but unfortunately, the counsel for appellants was not feeling well, so it was filed on 20.11.02. 5. That if the appeal is hit by any type of limitation, that was not intentional delay or fault of the applicants. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that if this appeal is hit by some limitation, that may please be condoned in the interest of justice. APPLICANTS, Dated: __________
Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
I.C.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. 5080/2002
Kashif Ghafoor Qadri etc.
Vs.
Chairman PCATP etc.
INDEX S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES 1
Urgent Form
2
Stamp Papers
3
Memo of Appeal.
4
Copy of judgment.
A
5
Copy of writ petition.
B
6
Copy of Directory-90.
C
7
Cop of letter.
D
8
Dispensation Application
9
Affidavit
10
Stay application.
11
Affidavit.
12
Power of Attorney APPELLANTS
Dated: __________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
I.C.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. 5080/2002
1.
Kashif Ghafoor Qadri S/o Abdul Ghafoor Qadri, caste Rajput, R/o H. No. 15/2, 60 Feet Road, New Multan.
2.
Javed Iqbal S/o Haroon Ali, caste Mughal, R/o Javed Associates, opposite Muhammad Arcade, 2nd Floor Mian Mansion, Khanewal Road, Multan.
3.
Naseer Ahmad Qureshi S/o Saeed Ahmad Qureshi, caste Qureshi, R/o Nai Abadi Gali Masjid Wali, Old Shujabad Road, Madina Town, Multan.
4.
Abduz Zahid S/o Abdul Khalid, caste Sheikh, R/o 80-Sultan Abad, Gulgasht Colony, Multan.
5.
Muhammad Zahid Akbar S/o Muhammad Akbar Rana, caste Rana, R/o 90-Timber Market, Multan.
6.
Muhammad Tarhir S/o Khushi Muhammad, 259 Mohallah Syed Wala, Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan.
7.
Muhammad Mujib S/o Muhammad Siddique, R/o H. No. 1275, Ward No. 3, Mohallah Kamangran, Hussain Agahi, Multan.
8.
Malik Muhammad Bakhsh S/o Malik Ghulam Rasool, caste Jat, R/o 2-Babar Colony, Police Lines, near Babar Building, Multan.
9.
Muhammad Asif Awan S/o Muhammad Ashraf Awan, caste Awan, R/o H. No. 2401/9, Mohallah Sultani Koocha Islami, O/s Lohari Gate, Multan. ……APPELLANTS
VERSUS 1.
Pakistan Council for Architects & Town Planners, through its Registrar.
2.
Chairman, Pakistan Council for Architects & Town Planners, Suit No. 111, First Floor, RSM Square E-1 Shaheed-e-Millat Road, Karachi.
3.
Tehsil city Municipal Administration, Multan, through City Nazim.
4.
Tehsil Sadar Municipal Administration, Multan, through Tehsile Nazim. …RESPONDENTS
APPEAL U/s 3 of Law Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972, against the judgment dated 17.10.02, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Chamber of this Hon’ble Court at Multan, resulting the dismissal of writ petition of the appellants/petitioners. Claim in Appeal: To set aside the impugned judgment and to accept the writ petition. Court Fee: As required under the law is affixed.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations.
2. That the ARCHITECTS AND TOWN PLANNERS were working haphazardly and to regulate the architectural and town planning work, a law namely Pakistan Council of Architects & Town Planner Ordinance 1983 was promulgated. This ordinance categorized the qualified and non-qualified architects and town planners; and a safeguard to the rights of both was provided through this ordinance. The Pakistan Council of Architects and Town Planners is a statutory body constituted under this ordinance. 3. That under section 16 (1) (a) of the ordinance, it was incumbent upon the Council to maintain this separate register in prescribed manner for the Architects & Town Planners possessing recognized qualifications and under section 16 (1) (b) to prepare two separate lists for the persons not possessing the qualifications as per section 16 (1) (a). The respondents No. 1 & 2 in compliance of section 8 (a) & 16 (1) (b) registered the applicants falling under section 16 (1) (b) and published a list first time in 1989. This list includes the Diploma Holders/Draftsmen of different periods and Naqsha Nawis(
) as well.
4. That the appellants are Draftsmen/Diploma Holders and working as non-qualified Architects/Town Planners. The appellants were enlisted/categorized by the respondent No. 3 and a fee as per schedule was paid to respondent No. 3 by the appellants and there was smooth working. Meanwhile the respondent No. 1 addressed a letter to respondent No. 3 in which, it was pointed out that the professionals, not enlisted with respondents No. 1 & 2 shall not be allowed to work. But the respondent No. 3 continued to receive the plans for approval. Now in response of this letter the respondent No. 3 framed their bye-laws. 5. That the appellants, without going deep into the controversy with respondents, submitted applications to the respondent No. 1 for enlistment as required under section 8 (a), 16 (1) (b) and 16 (2) as well. These applications were for the issuance of application form for registration and appellants desired to pay the prescribed fee.
These applications were duly received by the respondent No. 1, but in response, the respondent No. 1 refused to issue application form with reference to some notification. The respondent No. 1, even not bothered to send a copy of notification referred in the letters. It is pertinent to point out that no such notification is in existence upto the knowledge of the appellants. 6. That a great miscarriage of justice was caused by the letters and acts of respondents, so the grievance was agitated through the constitutional petition which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the Chamber, vide judgment dated 17.10.02. The certified copy of same with copy of petition is Annex “A & B”. 7. That the judgment dated 17.10.02 is impugned inter-alia on the following: GROUNDS i)
That the impugned judgment is against the principles of natural justice and law of equity.
ii)
That the impugned judgment is against the law and facts of the case.
iii)
That the acts of respondents and the impugned judgment are against the essence and objects enumerated in Article 2-A of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
iv)
That the reply of respondents is illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, capricious, void ab-initio and un-warranted under the law. On the other hand, it is the clear-cut violation of statutory provisions and in conflict with the ordinance (ibid). The intention of the legislation was quite clear, when section 8 (a) & 16 were inducted. In fact this assertion was a safeguard for the professionals having lesser qualification than qualified architects and town planners.
v)
That the comments submitted in the constitutional petition were against the facts. The respondents No. 1 & 2
enlisted
the
non-qualified
professionals
(draftsmen/diploma-holders) after the alleged cut-date i.e. 31.12.89 in the shape of Directory-90 while another directory for the year 1992 was published by respondents No. 1 & 2 is not available for the time being. Photocopy of Directory-90 is Annex “C”. vi)
That the conduct, acts and steps taken by the respondents are illegal, unlawful and unwarranted under the law, because the respondent No. 1 had already issued a letter stating thereby that the P.C.A.T.P. Ordinance, 1983 does not debar the petitioners to continue the work as “DRAFTSMEN”. Copy of letter is Annex “D”.
vii)
That the concealment of facts on the part of respondents No. 1 & 2 depicts their malafide and ulterior motive towards the petitioners.
viii)
That the acts and conduct of the respondents and the impugned judgment as well are in the collusion with articles 4, 18 & 25 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
ix)
That the Hon’ble Single Judge decided the case in haste and without taking the notice of prayer clause of constitutional petition.
x)
That the appellants are earning bread & butter for their families and now going to be penniless due to the conduct and behaviour of respondents. This situation is seriously attacking to the fundamental rights of the appellants, which warranted legal action in this regard.
xi)
That great miscarriage of justice is caused to the appellants due to the impugned judgment.
In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the impugned judgment may please be set aside and the constitutional petition may please be accepted. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may graciously be awarded in the interest of justice and equity. Humble Appellants, Dated: ________
Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
Certificate: Certified as per instructions of the client, this is the first Intra Court appeal on the subject matter. No such appeal has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. _________/2002 In I.C.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. 5080/2002
Kashif Ghafoor Qadri etc.
Vs.
Chairman PCATP etc.
APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. =========================================
Respectfully Sheweth: That certified copies of Annexes “C & D” are not available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. APPLICANTS, Dated: __________ Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. _________/2002 In I.C.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. 5080/2002
Kashif Ghafoor Qadri etc.
Vs.
Chairman PCATP etc.
APPLICATION U/S 5 OF LIMITATION ACT, 1908. AFFIDAVIT of: Kashif Ghafoor Qadri S/o Abdul Ghafoor Qadri, caste Rajput, R/o Street No. 10, Main Bazar, Shah Faisal Colony, Ghaus Pura, Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this ____day of November 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. _________/2002 In I.C.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. 5080/2002
Kashif Ghafoor Qadri etc.
Vs.
Chairman PCATP etc.
APPLICATION U/S 151 C.P.C. FOR INTERIM RELIEF. Sheweth as under: 1.
That the contents of main I.C.A. may be treated as the integral part and parcel of this application.
2.
That the category of applicants is drawing the site plans, maps and Naqshas (
) for a long time and their skill is
going to equalize their lesser qualifications. 3.
That the applicants have also been working in the same field since last 5/6 years successfully and there is no complaint at all in this respect.
4.
That the respondents No. 3 & 4 were always according sanction and approval of site plans, maps and Naqshas (
)
submitted by the applicants, but stopped the same, under the instructions/directions of respondents No. 1 & 2. 5.
That the applicants tried to get themselves enlisted under the law, but respondents No. 1 & 2 have refused to issue the application forms after receiving the prescribed fee.
6.
That the applicants are earning bread and butter for their families from this job and since last two months, the
applicants have become penniless due to the act and conduct of respondents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the respondents No. 3 & 4 may please be directed to entertain and approve the site plans, maps and Naqshas (
) submitted by the applicants, till the final
applicants decision of the main petition. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may also be granted to the applicants. APPLICANTS, Dated: __________
Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
I.C.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. 5080/2002
Kashif Ghafoor Qadri etc.
Vs.
Chairman PCATP etc.
AFFIDAVIT of: Kashif Ghafoor Qadri S/o Abdul Ghafoor Qadri, caste Rajput, R/o Street No. 10, Main Bazar, Shah Faisal Colony, Ghaus Pura, Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled I.C.A. are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this 18th day of November, 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT
Sr. No. 1
Name Kashif Qadri
Father’s name
Ghafoor Abdul Ghafoor Qadri
Caste Rajput
Haroon Ali
Educational qualification Matric
Technical qualification Civil Draftsman
Course duration 2 years
Session
Board
8-1995
Matric
Civil Draftsman
2 years
2-1991
Matric
Civil Draftsman
2 years
7-1991
Matric
Civil Draftsman
2 years
0-1989
Matric
Civil Draftsman
2 years
10-1996
Matric
Civil Draftsman
2 years
8-1995
Punjab Boar of Technical Education, Lahore Punjab Boar of Technical Education, Lahore Directorate of Manpower & Training Trade Testing Board, Punjab Punjab Boar of Technical Education, Lahore Directorate of Manpower & Training Trade Testing Board, Punjab Punjab Boar of Technical Education, Lahore Directorate of Manpower & Training Trade Testing Board, Punjab Directorate of Manpower & Training Trade Testing Board, Punjab Technical Training Centre, Karachi,/Karachi Poly Technical Institute, Karachi. Punjab Boar of Technical Education, Lahore
2
Javed Iqbal
3
Muhammad Akhtar Muhammad Hussain Lodhi Lodhi
4
Naseer Qureshi
5
Abduz Zahid
6
Muhammad Zahid Muhammad Akbar Rana
7
Muhammad Tahir
Khushi Muhammad
F.A.
Civil Draftsman
2 years
3-1999
8
Muhammad Mujib
Muhammad Siddique
Matric
Civil Draftsman
1 year
4-1994
9
Malik Muhammad Malik Ghulam Rasool Bakhsh
Matric
Civil Draftsman
2 years
0-1971
10
Muhammad Awan
Matric
Civil Engineering
3 years
12-1996
Hussain Lodhi
Ahmad Saeed Ahmad Qureshi Qureshi Abdul Khalid
Asif Muhammad Awan
Sheikh
Akbar Rana
Jat
Ashraf Awan
Experience 7 years 11 years 11 years
13 years 6 years
7 years 3 years
8 years
32 years
6 years
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
R.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. _________/2002 M. Akhtar Hussain Lodhi S/o Muhammad Hussain Lodhi, caste Lodhi, R/o Piran Sahib Colony No. 2, M.D.A. Road, near Pul Bararan, Multan. ……APPLICANT
VERSUS 1. Pakistan Council for Architects & Town Planners, through its Registrar. 2. Chairman, Pakistan Council for Architects & Town Planners, Suit No. 111, First Floor, RSM Square E-1 Shaheed-e-Millat Road, Karachi. 3. Tehsil city Municipal Administration, Multan, through City Nazim. 4. Tehsil Sadar Municipal Administration, Multan, through Tehsile Nazim. …RESPONDENTS
Review application U/s 114 C.P.C. against the judgment dated 17.10.02 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, Lahore High Court, Bench at Multan, by which the constitutional petition of the applicant was dismissed.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations. 2. That the ARCHITECTS AND TOWN PLANNERS were working haphazardly and to regulate the architectural and town planning work, a law namely Pakistan Council of Architects & Town Planner Ordinance 1983 was promulgated. This ordinance categorized the qualified and non-qualified architects and town planners; and a safeguard to the rights of both was provided through this ordinance. The Pakistan Council of Architects and Town Planners is a statutory body constituted under this ordinance. 3. That under section 16 (1) (a) of the ordinance, it was incumbent upon the Council to maintain this separate register in prescribed manner for the Architects & Town Planners possessing recognized qualifications and under section 16 (1) (b) to prepare two separate lists for the persons not possessing the qualifications as per section 16 (1) (a). The respondents No. 1 & 2 in compliance of section 8 (a) & 16 (1) (b) registered the applicants falling under section 16 (1) (b) and published a list first time in 1989. This list includes the Diploma Holders/Draftsmen of different periods and Naqsha Nawis(
) as well.
4. That the applicant is Draftsmen/Diploma Holder and working as non-qualified Architect/Town Planner. The applicant was enlisted/categorized by the respondent No. 3 and a fee as per schedule was paid to respondent No. 3 by the applicant and there was smooth working. Meanwhile the respondent No. 1 addressed a letter to respondent No. 3 in which, it was pointed out that the professionals, not enlisted with respondents No. 1 & 2 shall not be allowed to work. But the respondent No. 3 continued to receive the plans for approval. Now in response of this letter the respondent No. 3 framed their bye-laws. 5. That the applicant, without going deep into the controversy with respondents,
submitted
application
to
the
respondent
No. 1 for enlistment as required under section 8 (a), 16 (1) (b) and 16 (2) as well. These applications were for the issuance of application form for registration and appellants desired to pay the prescribed fee. This application was duly received by the respondent No. 1, but in response, the respondent No. 1 refused to issue application form with reference to some notification. The respondent No. 1, even not bothered to send a copy of notification referred in the letters. 6. That a great miscarriage of justice was caused by the letters and acts of respondents, so the grievance was agitated through the constitutional petition which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the Chamber, vide judgment dated 17.10.02. The certified copy of same with copy of petition is Annex “A & B”. 7. That the applicant seeks review of the judgment inter-alia on the following: GROUNDS i)
That the reply and comments of respondents are illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, capricious, void ab-initio and unwarranted under the law. On the other hand, it is the clear-cut violation of statutory provisions and in conflict with the ordinance (ibid). The intention of the legislation was quite clear, when section 8 (a) & 16 were inducted. In fact this assertion was a safeguard for the professionals having lesser qualification than qualified architects and town planners.
ii)
That the comments submitted in the constitutional petition were against the facts. The respondents No. 1 &
2
enlisted
the
non-qualified
professionals
(draftsmen/diploma-holders) after the alleged cut-date i.e. 31.12.89 in the shape of Directory-90 while another directory for the year 1992 was published by respondents No. 1 & 2 is not available for the time being. Photocopy of Directory-90 is Annex “C”.
iii)
That the conduct, acts and steps taken by the respondents are illegal, unlawful and unwarranted under the law, because the respondent No. 1 had already issued a letter stating thereby that the P.C.A.T.P. Ordinance, 1983 does not debar the petitioners to continue the work as “DRAFTSMEN”. Copy of letter is Annex “D”.
iv)
That the applicant passed one year draftsman course on 24.10.1989 from Technical Training Centre Multan and joined Akhtar Associates which was working since 1981. On 27th of July, 1991 the applicant successfully completed two years course of Draftsman (civil) from the Govt. Vocational Institute (Boys) Bahawalpur. In this situation, the applicant successfully met with the conditions described in Section-28 (ibid). Copies of Educational Certificates with copy of license are Annexes “E, F & G”.
v)
That the respondents No. 3 & 4, when known as Municipal Corporation, Multan, the Deputy Mayor of said corporation issued a certificate in respect of working at competence of the applicant which is Annex “H”.
vi)
That the concealment of facts on the part of respondents No. 1 & 2 depicts their malafide and ulterior motive towards the petitioners.
vii)
That the acts and conduct of the respondents and the impugned judgment as well are in the collusion with articles 4, 18 & 25 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
viii) That great miscarriage of justice is caused to the applicant due to the impugned judgment.
In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the impugned judgment may please be viewed and the constitutional petition may please be accepted. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may graciously be awarded in the interest of justice and equity. Humble Appellant, Dated: ________ Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
Certificate: Certified as per instructions of the client, this is the first Review Application on the subject matter. No such application has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
R.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. _________/2002 M. Akhtar Hussain Lodhi Vs. Chairman PCATP etc. INDEX S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES 1
Urgent Form
2
Stamp Paper
3
Review application
4
Affidavit
5
Copy of judgment.
A
6
Copy of writ petition.
B
7
Copy of Directory-90.
C
8
Copy of letter.
D
9
Copies of certificate and license.
10
Copy of certificate
11
Dispensation Application
12
Affidavit
13
Stay application.
14
Affidavit.
15
Power of Attorney
PAGES
E,F,G H
APPLICANT, Dated: __________ Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
C.M. No. _________/2002 In R.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. _________/2002 M. Akhtar Hussain Lodhi Vs. Chairman PCATP etc.
APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. =========================================
Respectfully Sheweth: That certified copies of Annexes “C to H” are not available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. APPLICANTS, Dated: __________ Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
R.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. _________/2002 M. Akhtar Hussain Lodhi Vs. Chairman PCATP etc. REVIEW APPLICATION. AFFIDAVIT of: M. Akhtar Hussain Lodhi S/o Muhammad Hussain Lodhi, caste Lodhi, R/o Piran Sahib Colony No. 2, M.D.A. Road, near Pul Bararan, Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled review application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____day of November 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
C.M. No. _________/2002 In R.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. _________/2002 M. Akhtar Hussain Lodhi Vs. Chairman PCATP etc. APPLICATION U/S 151 C.P.C. FOR INTERIM RELIEF. Sheweth as under: 1. That the contents of main Review Application may be treated as the integral part and parcel of this application. 2. That the category of applicant is drawing the site plans, maps and Naqshas (
) for a long time and their skill is going
to equalize their lesser qualifications. 3. That the applicant has also been working in the same field since last 5/6 years successfully and there is no complaint at all in this respect. 4. That the respondents No. 3 & 4 were always according sanction and approval of site plans, maps and Naqshas (
) submitted
by
under
the
applicant,
but
stopped
the
same,
the
instructions/directions of respondents No. 1 & 2. 5. That the applicant tried to get himself enlisted under the law, but respondents No. 1 & 2 have refused to issue the application forms after receiving the prescribed fee.
6. That the applicant is earning bread and butter for his family from this job and since last two months, the applicant has become penniless due to the act and conduct of respondents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the respondents No. 3 & 4 may please be directed to entertain and approve the site plans, maps and Naqshas (
) submitted by the applicant, till
the final applicant decision of the main petition. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may also be granted to the applicant. APPLICANT, Dated: __________
Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. _________/2002 In I.C.A. No. _________/2002 In W.P. No. 5080/2002
Kashif Ghafoor Qadri etc.
Vs.
Chairman PCATP etc.
APPLICATION U/S 5 OF LIMITATION ACT, 1908.
Sheweth as under: 1. That the contents of main I.C.A. may be treated as the integral part and parcel of this application. 2. That the judgment in W.P. No. 5080/02 was announced on 17.10.02, while applicants applied for certified copy on 19.10.02. The certified copy was prepared on 31.10.02 and on the same day it was delivered to the applicants and the I.C.A. was filed on 20.11.02. The calculation is as under: Date of judgment:
17.10.02
Date of filing:
20.11.02
Total days:
33
Days consumed by copy branch: 13 Balance:
20
3. That the limitation for filing of appeal under article 151 of Limitation Act is 20 days. By this reason the appeal seems to be
within limitation. However, by the method of “inclusion and exclusion” of days, it may be barred by time for one day. 4. That the instant I.C.A. was ready for filing on 18.11.02, but unfortunately, the counsel for appellants was not feeling well, so it was filed on 20.11.02. 5. That if the appeal is hit by any type of limitation, that was not intentional delay or fault of the applicants. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that if this appeal is hit by some limitation, that may please be condoned in the interest of justice. APPLICANTS, Dated: __________
Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
Related Documents
Kashif
November 2019 7
C.v.of Kashif
June 2020 6
Kashif Mahmood
November 2019 9
Kashif Slide
June 2020 3
Kashif Hafeez
May 2020 6