Lahore Cantt Cooperative Housing Society Case Law

PLJ 2014 Cr.C. (Lahore) 738 (DB)

Present: Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan and Shujaat Ali Khan, JJ.

AMJAD IKRAM--Petitioner

versus

LAHORE CANTT. COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., LAHORE through its Secretary etc.--Respondents

Crl.Org. No. 1351-w of 2002, decided on 21.4.2014.

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--

----Art. 204--Constitutional petition--Criminal original petition--Contempt of Court--Report of Bailiff, Roznamcha Waqiati and statement of SHO were available on record but in all these three documents name of respondent was not available--Bailiff, SHO and Roznamcha was naming one Secretary of DMA and Major--As prima-facie petitioner has failed to made out a case of contempt of Court against respondent and as such application failed and dismissed accordingly.     [P. 739] A

Mr. Tipu Salman Makhdoom, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Adnan Shuja Butt, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

Mr. Umer Sharif, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing: 21.4.2014.

Order

The petitioner filed an application C.M.No. 1529/2002 for necessary punitive action and also for securing, through coercive measures, the orders dated 11.11.2002 and 14.11.2002 passed by this Court. In this Criminal Original Lahore Cantt. Cooperative Housing Society-Ltd (Now D.H.A) was arrayed as Respondent No. 1 through its Secretary, Col. (R) Ghulam Jafar. The Col. (R) Ghulam Jafar, the Secretary of DHA was arrayed as Respondent No. 2. The petitioner alleged that respondents have committed the offence of contempt of Court by not honoring the orders of this Court. This Court issued notice to respondents on C.M. No. 1/2002 in Writ Petition No. 2414/1995 for maintenance of status quo. The petitioner's counsel informed the respondents about the said order but the respondents refused to accept the same. That inspiteof the receipt of order dated 11.11.2002 the respondents chose not to unlock the gate of school and thereby defy/disobey the orders of this Court. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there are series of orders which were not obeyed by the respondents and as such the respondents arc liable to be prosecuted under the law of contempt of Court.

2.  Vide order dated 16.9.2009 Respondent No. 1 was deleted from the array of respondents as he was a juristic person, however Respondent No. 2 was directed to file reply. Respondent No. 2 filed reply and stated that he was not the Secretary of Respondent No. 1. This Court directed the Bailiff of this Court to inspect the site and report. The Bailiff of this Court appeared at site on 30.11.2002 along with the petitioner. The entire report of Bailiff shows that it was one Major Baig Muhammad and Col. Farooq, Secretary of Respondent No. 1, who misbehaved with him and have not accepted the orders of this Court. The report of Bailiff as well as Rupt Roznamcha Waqiati No. 32 dated 30.11.2002 is available on record. This Court also summoned the SHO concerned who appeared and made the statement before the Court but in his entire statement he has not named the Respondent No. 2 the accused.

3.  Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Respondent No. 2 is the Secretary, he flouted the orders of this Court and as such he is liable to be prosecuted for the honourand dignity of this Court.

4.  Learned counsel for respondent submits that the entire proceedings against respondent is based on misunderstanding, the Respondent No. 2 never violated the order of this Court nor he remained Secretary D.H.A, nor he has any intention to violate the Court's orders being an educated and responsible citizen.

5.  We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.  The report of Bailiff, Roznamcha Waqiati and statement of SHO are available on record but in all these three documents name of Respondent No. 2 Ghulam Jaffar is not available. The Bailiff, SHO and Roznamcha is naming one Col. Farooq, Secretary of DHA and Major Baig Muhammad. As prima-facie the petitioner has failed to made out a case of contempt of Court against respondent and as such application fails and dismissed accordingly.

(A.S.)   Application dismissed