High court judges’ orders can be challenged: SC
Administrative orders of a high court judge acting as ‘persona designata’ can be challenged through writ petitions
PHOTO: STOCK IMAGE
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court held on Saturday that administrative orders of a high court judge acting as ‘persona designata’ could be challenged through writ petitions.
Justice Mian Saqib Nisar authored an eight-page order against the rejection of a writ petition of a lawyer namely Ahmad Farooq Khatak, who contested for a seat on the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council.
Annual elections: CPNE elects office bearers, standing committee
He held that when a high court judge acted as ‘persona designata’, his decision could be challenged through a writ petition.
‘Persona designata’ is a legal term, defining judges acting in their personal capacity, performing administrative or executive functions, including quasi-judicial functions.
An election dispute arose between him and two other contenders, which came up before the election tribunal for resolution.
A judge of Peshawar High Court, being the head of the election tribunal, passed unfavorable order against the applicant.
Later, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution against the tribunal’s order. But the PHC dismissed his petition on the ground that it was not competent because no writ was available against a high court.
The Supreme Court bench declared the writ maintainable and set aside the PHC order, remanding the matter to decision afresh on merit.
Additional Advocate-General Arshed Jan told The Express Tribune that a number of judges were acting as ‘persona designata’, wherein they performed as heads of different tribunals. In view of this judgment, their decisions could now be challenged in high courts, he adds.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 26th, 2016.
The Supreme Court held on Saturday that administrative orders of a high court judge acting as ‘persona designata’ could be challenged through writ petitions.
Justice Mian Saqib Nisar authored an eight-page order against the rejection of a writ petition of a lawyer namely Ahmad Farooq Khatak, who contested for a seat on the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council.
Annual elections: CPNE elects office bearers, standing committee
He held that when a high court judge acted as ‘persona designata’, his decision could be challenged through a writ petition.
‘Persona designata’ is a legal term, defining judges acting in their personal capacity, performing administrative or executive functions, including quasi-judicial functions.
An election dispute arose between him and two other contenders, which came up before the election tribunal for resolution.
A judge of Peshawar High Court, being the head of the election tribunal, passed unfavorable order against the applicant.
Later, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution against the tribunal’s order. But the PHC dismissed his petition on the ground that it was not competent because no writ was available against a high court.
The Supreme Court bench declared the writ maintainable and set aside the PHC order, remanding the matter to decision afresh on merit.
Additional Advocate-General Arshed Jan told The Express Tribune that a number of judges were acting as ‘persona designata’, wherein they performed as heads of different tribunals. In view of this judgment, their decisions could now be challenged in high courts, he adds.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 26th, 2016.