- Ss. 202 & 367 — Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/148/149 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Penal Laws Enforcement Act (IX of 1974), S.4/5 — Judgment, validity of — Judgment or order passed by a de facto Judge cannot be set aside on the ground that his appointment was violative of law rests upon the doctrine of necessity and public policy — If parties are permitted to raise such objection in private litigation, the same would cause embarrassment to the Judge and open the door to attack the authority of the Judge in private proceedings to which he is not a party and no opportunity to defend him is given — Appointment of a Judge is open to challenge by seeking a writ of quo warranto and not by raising an objection by a party in private litigation. Amjad Hussain & 4 others v. Ghulam Rasool Mir & 2 others 1997 SCR 161 (A) In re: Patan Ali Khan AIR 1947 Mad. 248; J.B. Mangharam & Co. Gwallior v. K.E. Kher AIR 1956 Madhya Bharat 183 and Muhammad Ayub Khuhro v. Pakistan PLD 1960 SC(Pak.) 237 distinguished Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1983 PSC 890; Parameswaram Pillai Bhaskaran Pillai v. State Prosecutor AIR 1951 Trav. Co.45 and Muhammad Iqbal v. Member Board of Revenue, Punjab NLR 1981 Civil 32 rel.
- Contention that respondent remained working against the post of Managing Director after retirement illegally — all the emoluments and salary received may be ordered to be deposited back — Held: respondent remained working on the basis of status-quo order issued by the High Court — Further Held: the respondent cannot be ordered to pay backthe salary and other emoluments received. Azad Govt. & 3 others v. Mrs. Jamshed Naqvi & 2 others 2014 SCR 13 (G)
- Contention that respondent remained working against the post of Managing Director after retirement illegally — all the emoluments and salary received may be ordered to be deposited back — held: respondent remained working on the basis of status-quo order issued by the High Court — further held: the respondent cannot be ordered to pay back the salary and other emoluments received. Azad Govt. & 3 others v. Mrs. Jamshed Naqvi & 2 others 2014 SCR 13 (J &K)
- All acts done and functions performed by the Chairman and member of the P.S.C. are valid in light of judgment of this Court reported as 2012 SCR 213. Syed Mumtaz Hussain Naqvi & 9 others v. Raja Muhammad Farooq Haider Khan & 4 others 2014 SCR 43 (EE)
- According to the spirit of the constitutional provisions i.e section 56 of the constitution Act and keeping in view the principle of law laid down in PLD 2012 SC (AJ&K) 42, all the acts done by the judges of the Shariat Court appointed under the provisions of section 3 of Act, 1993 are declared valid on the principle of de-facto doctrine including the drawing of the financial benefits. Bashir Ahmed Mughal v. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2014 SCR 1258 (QQ)
- All acts done and functions performed by the Chairman and member of the P.S.C. are valid in light of judgment of this Court reported as 2012 SCR 213. Syed Mumtaz Hussain Naqvi & 9 others v. Raja Muhammad Farooq Haider Khan & 4 others 2013 SCR 43 (EE)
- Tenure of office under law — 4 years — holding of office in excess of tenure — against law — acts done and monetary benefits drawn being chairman during excessive time protected under defecto doctrine — in furtherance of the above recorded findings, as the tenure of the office of Chairman Service Tribunal is 4 years, thus, the respondent under law validly can held his office for 4 years. After completion of the tenure the holding of office by him is against law. However, keeping in view the principle of law laid down in Bashir Ahmed Mughal’s case (supra), all the acts done by the respondent being Chairman Service Tribunal including the drawing of the financial benefits are declared valid under the doctrine of defecto. According to the terms and conditions as settled under the provision of sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Service Tribunals Act, the respondent’s appointment against the post of Chairman Service Tribunal shall be deemed for a period of 4 years. However, till the announcement of the judgment, the acts performed by him including the receipt of monitory benefits shall be deemed valid under the principle of defecto doctrine. AJ&K Govt. & 2 others v. Syed Khalid Hussain Gillani 2016 SCR 228 (R)
- —AJ&K Council Service Tribunal—appointments declared contrary to law—act performed by Members—given protection under defecto doctrine—direction to authority to make fresh appointments of Members—within 30 days—although, we declared the fresh appointments contrary to law—-, however, keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, all the acts done by the Members Service Tribunal are declared valid under the principle of defecto doctrine and 30 days period, from the date of announcement of this judgment, is allowed to the concerned authorities to make fresh appointments in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs. AJK Council & others v. Raja Gul Muhammad & 6 others 2017 SCR 1427 (I)
error: Content is protected !!