| Case ID |
371976f9-5506-472a-8f2b-122f9a83f50c |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
C.P. No. D-2061 of 2009 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 14, 2011 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court dismissed the writ of quo warranto against Saleem Ishrat Hussain, Ex-Secretary Pharmacy Council of Sindh, on the grounds that he was not holding a public office at the time the petition was filed. The court ruled that for a writ of quo warranto to be issued, the petitioner must demonstrate that the respondent was occupying the public office at the time of the petition and was not qualified for that position. The court also struck down the notification issued by the Pharmacy Council fixing fees for the registration of pharmacists, stating that the Council lacked the authority to prescribe such fees in the absence of frame bye-laws as mandated by the Pharmacy Act, 1967. The decision emphasized adherence to constitutional and legal mandates by public functionaries, reinforcing the principle that any action taken outside the prescribed legal framework would be deemed without lawful authority. |
| Summary |
In the case of C.P. No. D-2061 of 2009 adjudicated by the Sindh High Court, the petitioner, Syed Muzahir Hussain Quadri, sought a writ of quo warranto against Saleem Ishrat Hussain, the Ex-Secretary of the Pharmacy Council of Sindh. The petition was based on the assertion that the respondent's appointment was invalid as it did not comply with the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1967. The court highlighted key legal principles regarding the issuance of a writ of quo warranto, emphasizing that the petitioner must prove that the respondent was holding a public office at the time of the petition and lacked the qualifications for that office. The court ultimately dismissed the petition on the grounds that the respondent was not in office when the petition was filed. Furthermore, the court invalidated the notification that set fees for pharmacist registration, asserting that the Pharmacy Council had no authority to impose such fees without having established the requisite bye-laws. This ruling underscores the critical importance of law adherence and proper governance by public officials, ensuring that all actions conform to the legal standards set forth in the Constitution and relevant statutes. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MUSHIR ALAM C.J.,
SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J
|
| Lawyers |
Sohail Hameed,
Abrar Hassan,
Sher Muhammad K. Shaikh, Addl. A.G
|
| Petitioners |
Syed MUZAHIR HUSSAIN QUADRI
|
| Respondents |
PROVINCE OF SINDH,
Abrar Hassan,
Saleem Ishrat Hussain,
Sher Muhammad K. Shaikh
|
| Citations |
2013 SLD 2310,
2013 PLD 285
|
| Other Citations |
Capt. Retd. Muhammad Naseem Hijazi v. Province of Punjab 2000 SCMR 1720
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973,
Pharmacy Act, 1967
|
| Sections |
199(1)(b)(ii),
5,
199,
4,
26,
34,
26(2)
|