Per Ajmal Mian, C. J.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 4, 23, 24 & 199-

As regards the second submission of Mr. Zaidi that the Act is ultra vires of Articles 4, 23 and 24 of the Constitution, it may be observed that from the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners and quoted hereinabove, it is true that the petitioners have not prayed for a declaration to the effect that the Act is ultra vires of the Constitution but in the grounds of the petition, averments have been made to the effect that the Act is violative of the provisions of the Constitution. The mere fact that the petitioners have omitted in the prayer to seek the above declaration through in the grounds such a plea has been taken, would not have debarred this Court from granting the appropriate relief even in the absence of an express prayer, if we were to agree with the contention of the learned for the petitioners. We have, therefore, examined the merits of Mr. Zaidi’s above submission. In furtherance of his above submissions, he has referred to the above Articles of the Constitution. Article 4 of the Constitution guarantees equal protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law as inalienable right of every citizen. It also inter alia provides that no action detrimental to the life. Liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law, whereas Article 23 enshrines that every citizen shall have the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property in any part of Pakistan, subject tot he Constitution and any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest. Article 24 inter alia provides that no person shall be compulsorily deprived shall be compulsorily acquired or taken possession of save for a public purpose and save by the authority of law which provides for compensation therefore. It further provides that nothing in the Article shall affect the validity of the compulsory acquisition or taking over in respect of the matter enumerated in sub clauses (a) to (f).

In our view, the acquisition of the management and control of the vessel was in accordance with law, it has not been complained by the petitioners that they were not paid compensation for the vessel in accordance with law.

We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the petition has no merits and, hence, it is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. [p. 53] J.

Petition dismissed.

Advocate for the Petitioners:
I. H. Zaidi.

Advocate for the Respondents:
S. M. Mahmoodul Hassan.

Dates of hearing: 18th and 19th October, 1988.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: