|
The bench consists of, besides Justices
Osmany and Jamali, Justices Mushir Alam, Azizullah M.
Memon, Khilji Arif Hussain, Maqbool Baqar and Ali Sain
Dino Metlo. It will resume its proceedings on July 3.
03.07.2007.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH, KARACHI
C.P. No.A-1144 of
2007
ORDER
Mr. Naheed
Afzal Advocate for Petitioner.
Learned Court set seeks time to the amended
title/petition, adjourned to 08.08.2007.
03.07.2007.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
KARACHI
C.P. No.1125 of 2007
ORDER
M/s. Munir-ur-Rehman,
Secretary, High Court Bar Association, Iftikhar Javed
Kazi, President and Karachi Bar Association are present
in person.
Mr. Shakeel Pervez,
Advocate holding brief for Mr. Qazi Faiz Essa, learned
Amicus Curiae.
Mrs. Soofia Saeed Shah,
Standing Counsel.
Mr. Masood A. Noorani,
Advocate General, Sindh.
Major Muhammad Ziaul
Qayyum on behalf of Director General Pakistan Rangers is
present in person.
M/s. Niaz Ahmed Siddiqui,
PPO, Shakeel Ahmed Durrani, Chief Secretary, Sindh,
Azhar Ali Farooqui, CCPO, Karachi, Muhammad Tahir Naveed,
TPo, Saddar, Karachi and Anwar Subhani are present in
person.
Mr. Waseem Sajjad,
Advocate for Respondent Dr. Arbab Ghulam Rahim, Chief
Minister, Sindh.
-------------
It is repeated that both M/s. Qazi Faiz Essa and Khalid
Anwar Learned Amicus Curiae are out of country.
Counter
affidavit has been filed by Dr. Arbab Ghulam Rahim,
Chief Minister, Sindh, Similarly, comments of M/s.
Shakeel Ahmed Durrani, Chief Secretary, Sindh,
Respondent No.3, Azhar Ali Farooqui, CCPO, Karachi,
Respondent No.8, Muhammad Tahir Naveed, TPO, Saddar,
Karachi and Respondent No.6, Ghulam Muhammad Muhtaram,
Home Secretary, Sindh have been filed by Learned Addl.
Advocate General, Sindh. He is directed to supply the
copies of the same to all Learned Counsel. All the
parties are directed to exchange the counter affidvits.
By consent, adjourned to
08.08.2007.
08.08.2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH, KARACHI
C.P. No.1125 of 2007
ORDER
M/s. Munir-ur-Rehman,
Secretary, High Court Bar Association, Iftikhar Javed
Kazi, President and Karachi Bar Association and Moin
Azhar Siddiqui are present.
Mr. Qazi Faiz Essa,
Learned Amicus Curiae.
Mr. Masood A. Noorani,
Advocate General, Sindh alongwith Mr. Muhammad Sarwar
Khan, Addl. A.G.
Major Muhammad Ziaul
Qayyum on behalf of Director General Pakistan Rangers is
present.
Mr. Waseem Sajjad,
Advocate for Respondent Dr. Arbab Ghulam Rahim, Chief
Minister, Sindh.
We have heard
Mr. Qazi Faiz Essa, Learned Amicus Curiae, who has
reiterated the Questionnaire. Which he has prepared
regarding the incident, which took place on the 12th
May, 2007 at various locations in Karachi including the
premises of this Court as well as the City Courts.
In our opinion
this Questionnaire is most relevant in order to arrive
at the truth of the matter, which forms the subject
matter of this Petition. Consequently, we would issue
notices to the Learned Attorney General for Pakistan,
Advocate General Sindh, the Chief Minister of Sindh, the
Chairman KPT. Mr. Babar Ghouri Minister of Port and
Shipping, Government of Pakistan. Mr. Waseem Akhter,
Advisor on Home Affairs to the Chief Minister, we would
also issue notices to the Federation of Pakistan through
the Secretary Ministry of Interior, Government of
Pakistan as well as the Home Secretary, Government of
Sindh and make them as Respondents to the Petition. A
copy of the Questionnaire prepared by the Learned Amicus
Curiae shall be attached to all the notices aforesaid
and we would direct all concerned to respond in detail
in terms of said Questionnaire alongwith supporting
documents and all relevant record.
In addition to the
Questionnaire raised by Mr. Qazi Faez Essa as noted
above, the Respondents shall also furnish information
regarding the following:
a) As to what is
the command and control structure of the security
apparatus in Sindh.
b) What are the
powers and responsibilities of the police officer of the
Law Enforcing Agencies deputed in Sindh in terms of the
relevant law viz. the Police Order 2002. The
Local Government Ordinance 2001 and the Rangers Act as
well as Rules of business.
c) That concerned
Authorities shall also submit Minutes of Meetings held
in connection with security arrangements of 12th May,
2007.
d) As to on whose
order police authorities were disarmed on 12th May,
2007, as reportedly they were:
e) As to what
measures the CCPO and the Home Secretary look after they
were directed by the Honourable Chief Justice of this
Court to remove the containers/trawlers around
the High Court premises and to ensure safely and
security of the Honourable Judges Lawyers and the
General Public.
The Learned
Attorney General and the Advocate General Sindh shall
appear personally in Order to assist this Court, if for
any reason they cannot appear, they shall depute
responsible law officers, Advocates so that the matter
can be expedited. So also we would issue notice to the
Chief Executive Officer of Aaj TV, Geo TV Network, KTN,
Sindh TV and the ARY One World, who are directed to
provide all the material information/record available
with them as to the incident which took place in Karachi
on 12th May, 2007. Notice shall also be issued to the
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.
The Office is
directed to prepare a separate file with regard to CMA
No.4137/2007, which is a contempt application against
the Chief Minister of Sindh Dr. Arbab Ghulam Rahim and
register the same as Cr. Misc. The rejoinder to the CA
filed by Mr. Waseem Sajjad should be made available by
the next date of hearing with advance copies adjourned
to 20.08. 2007.
08.08.2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH, KARACHI
C.P. No.1144 of 2007
Order with signature of
Judges
Petitioner is present in
person.
Petitioner has been
produced from jail custody. We have barely heard him and
gone through the prayers in made in this petition. We
are of the opining that such prayers address the issue,
which are already under consideration by us in C.P
number 1125 of 2007. hence we would adjourn this matter
to come up along with said petition counted affidavits
and the rejoinders to be filed by all concerted before
the next date of hearing to petitioner has expressed
some apprehension regarding his security while which in
jail constancies. We would direct the jail
superintendent, that complete security be given to the
petitioner while inside jail similarly he shall not
harassed/tortured in any manner whatever.
20.08.2007.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH, KARACHI
C.P. No.1125 of 2007
Order with
signature of Judges
M/s. Munir-ur-Rehman,
Secretary, High Court Bar Association, Iftikhar Javed
Kazi, President and Karachi Bar Association are present
in person.
Mr. Qazi Faiz Essa,
Learned Amicus Curiae.
Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui,
Advocate holding brief for Learned Attorney General of
Pakistan.
Mr. Masood A. Noorani,
Acting Advocate General, Sindh alongwith Mr. Abdul
Jabbar Lakho, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.
Major Muhammad Ziaul
Qayyum on behalf of Director General Pakistan Rangers is
present in person.
Mr. Raja Qureshi,
Advocate for the alleged Contemnors namely M/s. Niaz
Ahmed Siddiqui, PPO, Shakeel Ahmed Durrani, Former Chief
Secretary, Sindh, Azhar Ali Farooqui, CCPO, Karachi,
Muhammad Tahir Naveed, TPO, Saddar, Karachi and Anwar
Subhani.
Today, Mr.
Sarfraz Ahmed Sulheri, Advocate files power on behalf of
KPT as well as Answers to Questionnaire, which is on
Oath having been sworn by Mr. Bashir Ahmed, Manager
Legal Affairs. We have gone through the Answers to the
Questionnaire and are not satisfied with their response
to the Questionnaire insofar as the KPT is concerned
i.e. Questions No.1 to 6. Consequently, let Chairman,
KPT file his personal affidavit in response to the
Questions No.1 to 6. During the arguments, today, it has
transpired that perhaps KPT has the record of
Containers, which left Port Premises. Consequntly, such
recor shall be placed in the File i.e. with regard to
these containers, which left Port Premises between
midnight of 10th May, 2007 to Midnight of 10th
May, 2007. So also Chairman KPT shall place on record
the correspondence/other communications, orally or in
writing, exchanged with any Authority vis-à-vis demand
of Containers on these two dates.
Mr. Raja
Qureshi, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Police
Officials and the Functionaries of Government of Sindh,
says that some time may be given to him to prepare
Answers to the Questionnaire as these are in detail and
required collection of information from various sources.
Mr. Rizwan
Ahmed Siddiqui, Learned Counsel holding brief for
Learned Attorney General for Pakistan, submits that
Learned Attorney General for Pakistan is busy before
Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and also sought
time.
Mr. Zameer
Ahmed Ghumro, Advocate files power on behalf of Sindh TV
and has also placed on record DVDs, which are in
possession of Sindh TV regarding the incident, which
took place in the City on 12.05.2007.
Mr. Muhammad
Ashraf Samoo, Advocate undertakes to file power on
behalf of KTN News and has filed DVDs, which are in
possession of KTN News regarding the incident, which
took place in the City on 12.05.2007. So also Mr.
Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Advocate, undertakes to file power
on behalf of Geo TV and placed on record three DVDs
regarding incident alongwith statement.
According to
Bailiff’s report Mr. Waseem Akhtar, Advisor to Chief
Minister, Government of Sindh has been severed but today
there is no representation.
Mr. S. Iqbal
Haider, Advocate undertakes to file power on behalf of
Human Rights Commission and also seeks time in order to
place on record report of the Commission.
We have
heard all Learned Counsel as well as Learned Acting
Advocate General Sindh. In the circumstances, we would
adjourn the matter to 27.08.2007, on which date, Mr.
Raja Qureshi, Learned Counsel would ensure that answers
to the Questionnaire is available alongwith advance copy
to the other side. Copies of DVDs which have been filed
today shall be provided to all Learned counsel. Let
notice be repeated upon Chief Executive Officers of Aaj
and ARY TV Channels as well as Mr. Babar Ghauri, Federal
Minister, Ports and Shipping Wing, Government of
Pakistan. Notice shall be sent through all modes. Notice
shall also be repeated upon Mr. Waseem Akhtar, Advisor
to Chief Minister, Government of Sindh. It is
specifically ordered that if on the next date, the
persons, who are served, are not present, heavy cost
shall be imposed upon them.
Answers to
the Questionnaire shall also be placed on record by
Chief Minister, Sindh. Hence, let notice be issued to
him as well, alongwith copy of this order.
27.08.2007.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH, KARACHI
C.P. No.1125 of 2007
Order with signature
of Judges
M/s. Munir-ur-Rehman,
Secretary, High Court Bar Association, Iftikhar Javed
Kazi, President Karachi Bar Association, Ashraf Samoo,
President, Malir Bar Association and Salahuddin Gandapur
on behalf of Sindh Bar Council are present in person.
M/s. Qazi Faiz Essa,
and Khalid Anwar, Learned Amicus Curiae are also present
in person.
Mr. Rizwan Ahmed
Siddiqui, Advocate holding brief for Learned Attorney
General for Pakistan.
Mr. Mubin Lakhi,
Advocate for ARY One World.
Mr. Khawaja Naveed
Ahmed, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Babar Ghauri, Federal
Minister, Ports and Shipping Wing, Government of
Pakistan and Chairman, KPT, who is also present.
Mr. I.A. Hashmi,
Advocate for Mr. Waseem Akhter, Advisor to Chief
Minister, Government of Sindh, who is also present.
Mr. Masood A. Noorani,
Acting Advocate General, Sindh alongwith Mr. Ahmed
Pirzado, Learned Addl. A.G. and Mr. Abdul Jabbar Lakho,
Assistant Advocate General Sindh.
Major Muhammad Ziaul
Qayyum on behalf of Director General Pakistan Rangers is
present in person.
M/s. Raja Qureshi and
Narain Das Motiani, Advocates for the alleged Contemnors
namely M/s. Niaz Ahmed Siddiqui, PPO, Shakeel Ahmed
Durrani, Former Chief Secretary, Sindh, Azhar Ali
Farooqui, CCPO, Karachi, Muhammad Tahir Naveed and TPO,
Saddar, Karachi.
Mr. Anwar Subhani on
behalf of I.G. Sindh is also present in person.
Mr. Asif Zuberi, Chief
Executive Officer, Aaj TV is also present in person.
-------------
Today,
replies to the Questionnaire have been filed by Mr. Raja
Qureshi, Learned Counsel for the Alleged Contemnors.
M/s. Khawaja Naveed Ahmed and I.A. Hashmi, Learned
Counsel have also filed similar answers. Mr. Habibur
Rehman, Learned Counsel undertakes to do so on the next
date of hearing.
Learned Counsel
as well as Learned Amicus Curiae say that they need some
time in Order to go through the replies to the
Questionnaire. Hence, the matter is adjourned to
03.09.2007. To be taken up at 8.30 a.m. In the meanwhile
all Learned Counsel are directed to exchange their
pleadings before the next date of hearing so that the
matter can proceed and proper hearing can take place.
Mr. Asif Zuberi,
Chief Executive Officer of Aaj TV has also supplied DVDs
of the incident which took place on 12.05.2007 in the
City. So also Mr. Mubin Lakho, Learned Counsel on behalf
of ARY One World has supplied DVDs. Both are directed to
supply copies to all Learned Counsel, Learned Amicus
Curiae and Law Officers.
NEWS DAILY DAWN
02-09-2007
Kazmi says wife, relative
kidnapped, wounded
KARACHI, Aug
1: Wife of civil rights campaigner Syed Iqbal Kazmi was
kidnapped on Wednesday in the Defence area while she was
on her way to the Sindh High Court to meet her husband,
who was produced in the SHC to attend the hearing of one
of his cases.
Mr Kazmi told Dawn in the
City Courts that his wife Sadia Kazmi and a relative,
Mohammad Imran Shehzad, general-secretary of the Awami
Himayat Tehrik, were coming to see him in the Sindh High
Court when four men in a Parado jeep took them away from
the Defence Library bus stop on the Sunset Boulevard.
“I have time and again
appealed to the courts to provide security to my family
as some unknown persons are already bent upon torturing
my wife and have been hurling threats over the
telephone, especially at midnight,” he said.
He said although his own
life was also in danger, he was more concerned about his
family members.
He said his wife had
received injuries on her arms and Imran Shehzad received
many injuries on the abdomen and other parts of his
body.
“I have informed the SHC
of the problems I have been facing and I was assured
that proper security would be provided to my family,” he
remarked.
Sadia Kazmi, wife of
Iqbal Kazmi, told Dawn over the telephone that the
police at the Defence police station had refused to
register a kidnapping case without our going through the
medico-legal process. She said the process was
completed, but the case was not registered till evening.
She
said the kidnappers beat them up and as a result Imran
Shehzad fainted. “We were dropped at a distance in the
Defence area,” she said, adding: “We came to the SHC and
got our statements recorded here.”
03.09.2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
KARACHI
C.P. No.D-1144 of 2007
Order with signature of Judges
Petitioner S. Muhammad
Iqbal Kazmi has bene produced by the Jail Authorities.
---------------
Same Order as in C.P. No.1125 of
2007.
03.09.2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
KARACHI
C.P. No.1125 of 2007
Order with signature
of Judges
M/s. Munir-ur-Rehman,
Secretary, High Court Bar Association, Iftikhar Javed
Kazi, President Karachi Bar Association and Ashraf Samoo,
Vice President, Malir Bar Association and Mr. Gandapur
on behalf of Sindh Bar Council.
M/s. Qazi Faiz Essa,
Learned Amicus Curiae.
Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui,
DAG.
Mr. Khawaja Naveed Ahmed,
Advocate on behalf of Mr. Babar Ghauri, Federal
Minister, Ports and Shipping Wing, Govt. of Pakistan and
Chairman, KPT.
Mr. I.A. Hasmi, Advocate
for Mr. Waseem Akhtar, Advisor to Chief Minister,
Government of Sindh.
Mr. Masood A. Noorani,
Acting Advocate General, Sindh alongwith Mr. Muhammad
Sarwar Khan, Learned Addl. A.G.
Major Muhammad Ziaul
Qayyum on behalf of Director General, Pakistan Rangers.
M/s. Raja Qureshi and
Narain Das Motiani, Advocates for the alleged contemnors
namely M/s. Niaz Ahmed Siddiqui, PPO, Sindh, Azhar Ali
Farooqui, CCPO, Karachi, Muhammad Tahir Naveed TPO,
Saddar, Karachi, who are also present.
---------------
Mr. Qazi
Faiz Essa, Learned Amicus Curiae has concluded his
arguments. Arguments of the Office Bearers of various
Bar Association viz. High Court Bar Association, Karachi
Bar Association, Malir Bar Association and Sindh Bar
Council have similarly concluded their arguments.
Arguments of Mr. Raja Qureshi have been partly heard.
Mr. Raja
Qureshi seeks more time to place on record true
translations of the various FIRs and Challans wich have
been registered/submitted regarding the incident of 12th
May, 2007. he is required to do the needful by 10th
September, 2007. Mr. Ishrat Hussain coming on behalf of
AAJ T.V., has placed on record set of
_________________________________________________ aired
by this Channel. He is directed to supply copies to all
other Learned Counsel and Law Officers. Similarly, Mr.
Zaheer Ahmed, appearing on behalf of Geo TV, has placed
on record such DVDs. He is also directed to supply
copies to all other learned Counsel and Law Officers.
Learned Additional Advocate General Sindh is directed to
obtain comments from the various SHOs / TPOs , in whose
areas incidents took place on 12th May, 2007.
This should be done by the 10th September,
2007. Copies should be supplied in advance to all other
Learned Counsel.
Per Mr. Raja
Qureshi, the original annexure “G” to the comments filed
by the Home Secretary, is still not traceable and he
seeks further time. He is directed to ensure that the
same is placed on record by tomorrow and in case, it is
not traceable, the Home Secretary shall file an
affidavit to this effect.
As the Vice
President of the Malir Bar Association, during the
course of his arguments, submitted that despite best
efforst his FIR was not lodged by the concerned SHO viz.
P.S. Airport, Karachi, the said SHO is directed to do
so, whenever the Vice President of the Malir Bar
Association approaches him and thereafter file true copy
of the FIR alongwith a translation before this Court.
Adjourned to 07.09.2007.
06.09.2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
KARACHI
C.P. No.1125 of 2007
Order with signature
of Judges
M/s. Munir-ur-Rehman,
Secretary, High Court Bar Association, Iftikhar Javed
Kazi, President Karachi Bar Association and Ashraf Samoo,
Vice President, Malir Bar Association and Mr. Gandapur
on behalf of Sindh Bar Council.
M/s. Qazi Faiz Essa,
Learned Amicus Curiae.
Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui,
DAG.
Mr. Khawaja Naveed Ahmed,
Advocate on behalf of Mr. Babar Ghauri, Federal
Minister, Ports and Shipping Wing, Govt. of Pakistan and
Chairman, KPT.
Mr. I.A. Hasmi, Advocate
for Mr. Waseem Akhtar, Advisor to Chief Minister,
Government of Sindh.
Mr. Masood A. Noorani,
Acting Advocate General, Sindh alongwith Mr. Muhammad
Sarwar Khan, Learned Addl. A.G.
Major Muhammad Ziaul
Qayyum on behalf of Director General, Pakistan Rangers.
M/s. Raja Qureshi and
Narain Das Motiani, Advocates for the alleged contemnors
namely M/s. Niaz Ahmed Siddiqui, PPO, Sindh, Azhar Ali
Farooqui, CCPO, Karachi, Muhammad Tahir Naveed TPO,
Saddar, Karachi, who are also present.
---------------
Mr. Qazi Faiz
Essa, Learned Amicus Curiae has concluded his arguments.
Arguments of the Office Bearers of various Bar
Association viz. High Court Bar Association, Karachi Bar
Association, Malir Bar Association and Sindh Bar Council
have similarly concluded their arguments. Arguments of
Mr. Raja Qureshi have been partly heard.
Mr. Raja
Qureshi seeks more time to place on record true
translations of the various FIRs and Challans wich have
been registered/submitted regarding the incident of 12th
May, 2007. he is required to do the needful by 10th
September, 2007. Mr. Ishrat Hussain coming on behalf of
AAJ T.V., has placed on record set of
_________________________________________________ aired
by this Channel. He is directed to supply copies to all
other Learned Counsel and Law Officers. Similarly, Mr.
Zaheer Ahmed, appearing on behalf of Geo TV, has placed
on record such DVDs. He is also directed to supply
copies to all other learned Counsel and Law Officers.
Learned Additional Advocate General Sindh is directed to
obtain comments from the various SHOs / TPOs , in whose
areas incidents took place on 12th May, 2007.
This should be done by the 10th September,
2007. Copies should be supplied in advance to all other
Learned Counsel.
Per Mr. Raja
Qureshi, the original annexure “G” to the comments filed
by the Home Secretary, is still not traceable and he
seeks further time. He is directed to ensure that the
same is placed on record by tomorrow and in case, it is
not traceable, the Home Secretary shall file an
affidavit to this effect.
As the Vice
President of the Malir Bar Association, during the
course of his arguments, submitted that despite best
efforst his FIR was not lodged by the concerned SHO viz.
P.S. Airport, Karachi, the said SHO is directed to do
so, whenever the Vice President of the Malir Bar
Association approaches him and thereafter file true copy
of the FIR alongwith a translation before this Court.
Adjourned to 07.09.2007.
07.09.2007.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
KARACHI
C.P. No.1125 of 2007
Order with signature
of Judges
M/s. Munir-ur-Rehman,
Secretary, High Court Bar Association, Iftikhar Javed
Kazi, President Karachi Bar Association, Ashraf Samoo,
President, Malir Bar Association and Mr. Salahuddin Khan
Gandapur on behalf of Sindh Bar Council are present in
person.
M/s. Qazi Faiz Essa and
Khalid Anwar, Learned Amicus Curiae are also present in
person.
Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui,
DAG.
Mr. Khawaja Naveed Ahmed,
Advocate on behalf of Mr. Babar Ghauri, Federal
Minister, Ports and Shipping Wing, Govt. of Pakistan and
Chairman, KPT.
Mr. I.A. Hasmi, Advocate
for Mr. Waseem Akhtar, Advisor to Chief Minister,
Government of Sindh.
Mr. Habib-ur-Rehman
Advocate.
Mr. Masood A. Noorani,
Acting Advocate General, Sindh alongwith Mr. M. Sarwar
Khan, Learned Addl. A.G.
Major Muhammad Ziaul
Qayyum on behalf of Director General, Pakistan Rangers
is present.
M/s. Raja Qureshi and
Narain Das Motiani, Advocates for the alleged contemnors
namely M/s. Niaz Ahmed Siddiqui, PPO, Sindh, Azhar Ali
Farooqui, CCPO, Karachi, Muhammad Tahir Naveed TPO,
Saddar, Karachi.
Mr. Anwar Subhani on
behalf of I.G. Sindh is also present in person.
---------------
The arguments of Mr. Raja
Qureshi have been partly heard. For further proceedings
adjourned to 10.09.2007 at 8.30 a.m.
By the next
date the learned DAG shall seek instructions from the
Federal Government as to whether any discussion/meeting
took place at the federal level regarding the visit of
the Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan to Karachi on
12.05.2007. If so, minutes of such meeting shall be
filed alongwith the supporting affidavit is the
concerned officer.
Mr. Mubeen
Lakho, Advocate, has today produce DVDs of various talk
shows which were held on ARY Television regarding the
incident of 12.05.2007. Those DVDs shall be kept in safe
custody by the Nazir of the Court Mr. Mubeen Lakho,
Advocate, is directed to file a statement and supply the
copies of DVDs to all advocates and other law officers
of this Court. So also Mr. Raja Qureshi is directed to
supply copies of the footage of age the CCTV cameras
which were installed around the premises of the High
Court by the police authorities on 12.05.2007.
10.09.2007.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
KARACHI
C.P. No.1125 of 2007
Order with signature of Judges
M/s. Munir-ur-Rehman,
Secretary, High Court Bar Association, Iftikhar Javed
Kazi, President Karachi Bar Association, Ashraf Samoo,
Vice President, Malir Bar Association and Mr. Salahuddin
Khan Gandapur on behalf of Sindh Bar Council.
Mr. Khawaja Naveed Amed,
Advocate on behalf of Mr. Babar Babar Ghauri of Pakistan
and Chairman, KPT.
Mr. I.A. Hasmi, Advocate
for Mr. Waseem Akhtar, Advisor to Chief Minister,
Government of Sindh.
Mr. Habib-ur-Rehman
Advocate.
Mr. Masood A. Noorani,
Acting Advocate General, Sindh alongwith Mr. Ahmed
Pirzada, Learned Addl. A.G.
Major Muhammad Ziaul
Qayyum on behalf of Director General, Pakistan Rangers
is present.
M/s. Raja Qureshi and
Narain Das Motiani, Advocates for the alleged contemnors
namely M/s. Niaz Ahmed Siddiqui, PPO, Azhar Ali Farooqui,
CCPO, Karachi, Muhammad Tahir Naveed TPO, Saddar,
Karachi.
---------------
Today, before assembly of
the Court, Learned Counsel present as recorded herein
above as well as Learned Acting Advocate General, Sindh
informed us that the Court Room is packed with an unruly
mob, who are likely to create a law and Order situation.
Even the Courtyard of the High Court leading upto the
passport Side Exit is crowded by such elements. Hence,
Learned Counsel have expressed their inability to
conduct the case today. We had thereafter, called the
Registrar of this Court to confirm the aforementioned
position and he has also informed us that
____________________ mobile present in the Court Room.
Corridors of the Building as well as in the Courtyard of
the High Court and are perhaps bent upon creating a law
and Order situation.
Learned Amicus, Mr. Qazi Faiz Esa, also appeared, later
and expressed, that if Court assembles it would
jeopardize the sanctity of the Court and anything
untoward may happen. According to him, adequate security
arrangements are also conspicuously missing.
In the
circumstances, we are compelled to adjourn the
proceedings today till next Monday i.e. 17.09.2007 at
8.30 a.m. as we are of the opinion that today no
proceedings can be held in view of the prevailing
situation. The file be placed before Honorable Chief
Justice for appropriate orders.
News Report Daily Dawn
MQM workers mass at SHC
during May 12 hearing
KARACHI, Sept 10:
The Sindh High Court adjourned on Monday the suo motu
inquiry into May 12 events for a week because of a
massive gathering of workers of the Muttahida Qaumi
Movement.
“The proceedings are being adjourned under compelling
circumstances,” said a seven-member bench in a brief
order after noting the request of lawyers appearing from
the two sides.
The bench sent the file to the chief justice for
necessary action to maintain security and discipline on
September 17, the next date of hearing.
A large number of MQM workers, including women, carrying
no flag or mark of identification, gathered in the court
premises and entered the courtroom where the bench was
to assemble at 8:30 am.
Some MNAs and MPAs of the party were also present and
the room was jam-packed before the hearing could start.
Mediapersons, assigned to cover the court proceedings,
faced difficulty to enter the courtroom.
A section of the crowd standing in the court raised
slogans in support of MQM leader Altaf Hussain.
The bench held consultations in the chamber adjoining
the courtroom and called the lawyers representing the
two sides for ascertaining their views.
The lawyers, including Sindh High Court Bar Association
president Abrar Hasan, SHCBA secretary Munir-ur-Rehman,
officiating advocate-general Masood Ahmed Noorani,
special provincial government counsel Raja Qureshi,
federal shipping and ports minister’s counsel Khwaja
Naveed Ahmed, provincial home adviser’s counsel Iqtidar
Ali Hashmi, and city district government counsel Habibur
Rehman, said the proceedings could not be held in a
disciplined manner in the presence of such a crowd.
Some of the lawyers said the large number of visitors
belonged to different shades of political spectrum and
there could be a threat to law and order besides a
breach of the decorum of the court.
Provincial Home Adviser Waseem Akhtar belonging to the
MQM had particularly been blamed for police inaction and
acts of violence on May 12.
The atmosphere during the proceedings has been heating
up with the government counsel questioning the
composition of the bench saying that four of its members
being complainants.
Deputy attorney-general Rizwan Siddiqui, who was stuck
in Islamabad on Monday, and Khwaja Naveed Ahmed
complained of mistreatment by their lawyer colleagues.
The bench also repeatedly rejected requests for
adjournment by respondents’ counsel.
17-09-2010
Adjourn of haring next
date in office
01-11-2007
Adjourn of haring next
date in office.
3rd vember 2007
Musharraf imposed state of emergency. Constitution was
suspended. Sixty independent judges were dismissed
Gen Musharraf’s second coup :
•Charge-sheet against judiciary •Media ‘promoting
negativism’ •Country’s ‘integrity at stake’
•Legislatures intact
ISLAMABAD,
Nov 3: In what is a virtual martial law, President
Pervez Musharraf, acting as army chief, on Saturday
imposed a state of emergency throughout Pakistan,
suspended the Constitution and replaced superior courts
in a move that could put the country’s political future
into disarray.
In his proclamation of
emergency, the general blamed growing violence by
militants and a judiciary which he said was working at
“cross purposes” with his government and the legislature
for his most drastic action since he seized power in an
October 12, 1999 coup.
A Provisional
Constitutional Order was also issued, putting the
Constitution in ‘abeyance’ but saying the country would
be “governed, as nearly as may be, in accordance with
the Constitution” although seven of its articles
relating to fundamental rights would remain suspended,
and empowering the president to amend the document ‘as
is deemed expedient’.
The move, greeted with
immediate condemnation at home by opposition parties,
lawyers and human rights groups and concern from “war on
terror” allies like the United States and Britain, came
only 12 days before the expiration of General
Musharraf’s presidency and the present assemblies and
while an 11-judge bench of the Supreme Court was in a
weekend recess in its hearing of challenges to his
election for another five-year presidential term mainly
on grounds of his army office.
General Musharraf seemed
to have run out of other political and constitutional
options as he took one of the most extraordinary steps
by a ruler in 60 years of Pakistan’s life, putting aside
not only the Constitution but also his own sweeping
powers as president and preferring to act as Chief of
the Army Staff.
The emergency
proclamation said a situation had arisen where the
“government of the country cannot be carried out in
accordance with the Constitution” and “the Constitution
provides no solution for this situation”.
However, the present
federal and provincial governments, both houses of
parliament and the provincial assemblies were kept
intact.
CHARGE-SHEET AGAINST
JUDICIARY: While
it started with what it called “visible ascendancy in
the activities of extremists and incidents of terrorist
attacks” as grounds for the action, the proclamation
contained a long charge-sheet against the superior
judiciary some of whose members, it said, “are working
at cross purposes with the executive and legislature in
the fight against terrorism and extremism, thereby
weakening the government and the nation’s resolve and
diluting the efficacy of its actions to control this
menace”.
“... (T)here has been
increasing interference by some members of the judiciary
in government policy, adversely affecting economic
growth, in particular,” it said, adding that there was
“constant interference in executive functions.”
It also blamed the
judiciary’s interference for having “weakened the writ
of the government, the police force ... been completely
demoralized and ...fast losing its efficacy to fight
terrorism, and intelligence agencies ... thwarted in
their activities and prevented from pursuing
terrorists.”
While “some hard core
militants, extremists, terrorists and suicide bombers,
who were arrested and being investigated were ordered to
be released,” it said and added: “The persons so
released have subsequently been involved in heinous
terrorist activities, resulting in loss of human life
and property. Militants across the country have, thus,
been encouraged while law enforcement agencies (were)
subdued.”
CONSULTATIONS: The
proclamation said the general acted after reviews of the
situation in meetings with the prime minister, governors
of all four provinces, armed forces chiefs and army
corps commanders.
“Now, therefore, in
pursuance of the deliberations and decisions of the said
meetings, I General Pervez Musharraf, Chief of the Army
Staff, proclaim emergency throughout Pakistan,” it said.
“I hereby order and proclaim that the Constitution of
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan shall remain in
abeyance.”
BLOW TO JUDICIARY: The
emergency proclamation’s charges against judicial
activism, which were immediately followed by change of
command at the Supreme Court as well as changes in
provincial high courts, appeared aimed at reversing what
was hailed as a revival of independence of the judiciary
after months of an epic movement led by lawyers since
the president suspended Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad
Chaudhry on March 9.
Justice Iftikhar, who was
reinstated by a bench of Supreme Court judges on July
20, and several of his colleagues got marching orders
under the new Provisional Constitution Order (PCO)
though some of them put up a last-ditch resistance by
holding the action void.
The proclamation accused
“some” unspecified judges of the superior courts of
“overstepping the limits of judicial authority” and
having “taken over the executive and legislative
functions”.
The references seemed to
be mainly directed at Justice Iftikhar and his
colleagues for some of their actions against government
officials and pursuance of the cases of missing people
allegedly detained by intelligence agencies.
The fundamental rights
suspended by the PCO related to security of persons
(article 9) safeguard as to arrest and detention
(article 10), freedom of movement (article 15), freedom
of assembly, (article 16) freedom of association
(article 17), freedom of speech (article 19), and
equality of citizens (article 25).
It
said the Supreme Court or a high court or any other
court “shall not have the power to make any order
against the president or the prime minister or any
persons exercising powers or jurisdiction under their
authority”.
Seven judges reject PCO
before being sent home
ISLAMABAD, Nov 3: In
an unprecedented move, seven judges of the Supreme Court
on Saturday overturned the Provisional Constitutional
Order and restrained the Chief of Army Staff, corps
commanders, staff officers and other civil and military
officers from acting under the decree.
The judges restrained President Gen Pervez Musharraf and
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz from taking actions contrary
to the independence of the judiciary and asked the
judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts,
including their chief justices, not to take an oath
under the PCO or follow any other extra-constitutional
step.
Headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, the
bench that handed down the unanimous two-page order
consisted of Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Justice Javed
Iqbal, Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan, Justice Nasirul
Mulk, Justice Raja Fayyaz and Justice Ghulam Rabbani.
Anticipating something unusual, the judges remained in
the Supreme Court till late afternoon on a day when the
court never assembles. It otherwise would not have been
possible for them to pass the order. “We feel that the
government has no ground or reason to take
extra-constitutional steps, particularly for the reasons
being published in newspapers that a high-profile case
is pending and is not likely to be decided in favour of
the government, although the matter is still pending,”
the order said.
Appointment of the chief justice or judges of the
Supreme Court or chief justices of the high courts under
the new PCO would be unlawful and without jurisdiction,
it said.
Copies of the order were sneaked out to the awaiting
newsmen outside the court premises.
The order came on an application of Supreme Court Bar
Association president Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan. The
application was fixed for Monday to be taken up by a
full court.
A constitutional expert, who wished not to be named,
said the oath taking of the new chief justice was
illegal because the PCO was struck down the moment it
was issued.
More than seven judges of the Supreme Court were
required to reverse the restraining order, he said,
adding that to the best of his knowledge only four
judges were available in the capital till late Saturday
night.
Another lawyer close to the government circles put the
blame on the judiciary and lawyers, saying “they asked
for it”. He termed the extra-constitutional measure a
bitter pill necessary for the treatment of an ailment.
In its order, the Supreme Court said the PCO had been
promulgated to enable the government to administer a
fresh oath to the chief justice and judges of the court
so that favourable judges could be appointed.
Aitzaz Ahsan, while filing his application on Friday,
had requested an 11-member bench to take immediate
action before the axe fell on the judges.
Attorney-General Malik Mohammad Qayyum had replied in an
angry tone that no martial law was being imposed.
HOUSE ARREST: Sacked Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad
Chaudhry and some other judges who refused to take an
oath under the new PCO were placed under house arrest
shortly after the seven-member bench declared the
proclamation of emergency unconstitutional, sources in
the police department said.
Justice Chaudhry had earlier been told by the government
that his services were no longer required and he had
been escorted back to his home.
He returned home in his car carrying the chief justice
flag, along with the official motorcade. Alighting from
his vehicle, he looked calm and composed and was greeted
by his personal staff.
His home was later surrounded by personnel of the
Islamabad police, Punjab Constabulary and intelligence
agencies. The road leading to judicial colony had been
blocked since evening.
ISLAMABAD, Nov 3: A majority of the Supreme Court as
well as the provincial high court judges either refused
or were not invited to take oath under the Provisional
Constitutional Order (PCO) issued after the proclamation
of the state of emergency here on Saturday.
However, it was not clear
whether the judges who were not invited on Saturday
would be asked to take a fresh oath on Sunday or Monday.
“The development suggests
that the judicial activism spearheaded by now removed
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry also had an
effect on the judges,” a legal expert commented while
talking to Dawn.
In the Supreme Court,
only four judges out of 19 took oath under the PCO.
Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, who is the fourth in line in
the seniority list, was sworn in as the new Chief
Justice of Pakistan by President Pervez Musharraf. He
was elevated as judge of the apex court in April 2000
when the then chief justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and six
other judges who had refused to take oath under the PCO
issued by Gen Musharraf at the time of the first coup.
Those who took oath under
the fresh PCO are Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Justice
Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Justice M Javed Buttar.
In the Sindh High Court,
four judges out of 27 sitting judges took oath with
Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed declining to take oath.
However the most
startling news came from Quetta where all the five
existing judges of the Balochistan High Court took oath.
In Sindh, Justice
Mohammad Afzal Soomro was sworn in as the Chief Justice
who was seventh in line among the senior judges.
Later, the SHC Chief
Justice administered oath to Justice Munib Ahmed Khan,
Justice Mrs Yasmin Abbasi and Justice Mrs Qaiser Iqbal.
Those who took oath in
Quetta are: Chief Justice Amanullah Yasinzai, Justice
Mohammad Nadir Khan, Justice Akhtar Zaman, Justice Ahmed
Khan Lashari and Justice Kalash Nath Kauli.
In Peshawar, Chief
Justice Tariq Pervez Khan and Justice Shah Jehan Khan
refused to take oath and Justice Talaat Qayyum Qureshi,
who is third in seniority, was sworn in as Chief
Justice. Only five of the 13 judges took oath. They are
Justice Ijazul Hassan Khan, Justice Muhammad Qaim Jan
Khan, Justice Salim Khan, Justice Said Maroof Khan and
Justice Hamid Farooq Durrani.
According to an official
announcement, Justice Mohammad Raza and Justice Raj
Mohammad Khan would be administered oath on Monday. Four
of the judges were not invited.
Justice Syed Zahid
Hussain Bokhari, Justice Nasim Sikandar, Justice
Mohammad Khalid Alvi, Justice Sakhi Hussain Bokhari,
Justice M Bilal Khan, Justice Mohammad Muzammal Khan,
Justice Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, Justice Hamid Ali Shah,
Justice Tariq Shamim, Justice Syed Asghar Haider,
Justice Hasnat Ahmad Khan and Justice Fazl-e-Miran
Chohan were administered oath by the Peshawar High Court
Chief Justice.
In
Lahore, 13 of 31 judges took oath. Four other judges in
the circuit benches are expected to take oath on Sunday
or Monday.
Hon'ble Chief
Justice of Pakistan
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD
CHAUDHRY
CHIEF JUSTICE OF PAKISTAN
Name Mr.
Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
Father’s Name Chaudhry
Jan Muhammad
Date of Birth 12
December, 1948
Domicile
Balochistan (Quetta), Pakistan
Educational
B.A. LL.B.
Residential Address 54-B Zarghoon
Road, Quetta, Pakistan.
Postal Address Supreme
Court of Pakistan Constitutional Avenue, Islamabad.
Professional Experience:
·
Joined the legal profession as an
Advocate in the year 1974; enrolled as Advocate High
Court in the year 1976 and as Advocate Supreme Court
in the year 1985, and practiced law in all
fields/subjects i.e. Constitutional, Criminal, Civil,
Tax, Revenue, etc.
·
Was appointed Advocate General
Balochistan in the year 1989;
·
Was appointed Additional Judge High Court
of Balochistan in the year 1990, as Judge in the year
1993 and as Chief Justice of that Court on 22nd April
1999;
·
Was appointed as Judge Supreme Court of
Pakistan on 4th February
2000 and as Chief Justice Pakistan on 30th June
2005:
Additional Experience/Activities:
·
Was elected as President High Court Bar
Association, Quetta;
·
Was elected twice as Member Bar Council;
·
Besides functioning as Judge High Court
of Balochistan, Quetta discharged duties as Banking
Judge Special Court for Speedy Trials, Judge Customs
Appellate Court as well as Company Judge.
·
Was appointed as Chairman Balochistan
Local Council Election Authority in the year 1992 and
thereafter for second term in the year 1998;
·
Was appointed as Chairman Provincial
Review Board for the Province of Balochistan on the
recommendations of Hon’ble Chief Justice of
Pakistan;
·
Was appointed twice as Chairman of
Pakistan Red Crescent Society Balochistan by Government
of Balochistan;
·
Was nominated by Hon’ble Chief Justice of
Pakistan as Chairman, Enrolment Committee of Pakistan
Bar Council;
·
Was appointed as Judge Incharge Supreme
Court Staff Welfare Committee by the Hon’ble Chief
Justice:
International
visits as Chief Justice of Pakistan:
·
Attended 22nd Biennial
Congress on the Law of the World held in Beijing &
Shanghai, China in September, 2005;
·
Participated in International Conference
and Showcase on Judicial Reforms held in the Philippines
in November, 2005;
·
Visited United Kingdom in February, 2006
in connection with The UK-Pakistan Judicial Protocol on
Child and Family Laws;
·
Visited Malaysia in August, 2006 to
deliver a Public Lecture on the topic, “The Relationship
between Law and Mortality in Islamic Common Law
System”;
·
Attended XVII World Congress of the
“International Association of Youth and Family Judges
and Magistrates” at Belfast, Northern Ireland in
August, 2006;
·
Visited India on Golden Jubilee
Celebration of Indian Law Institute in November, 2006;
·
Attended the Symposium on 47th Anniversary
of the Constitutional Court of Turkey in April, 2009:
Awards and honor
Harvard
Law School Medal of Freedom
Received Medal
of Freedom from the Harvard Law School (HLS) with
the recitation –
“Presented to
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
November 19, 2008
distinguished lawyer and judge, through
your courage, conviction, and steadfast commitment to
the independence of the judiciary, you stand as a model
to those working to maintain the rule of law in Pakistan
and around the world.”
He is the first Pakistani to be presented
with HLS Medal of Freedom, which is only given to
selected personalities for their contributions to
freedom, justice, and equality. Earlier, only two other
persons were awarded this honor. The first was Charles
Hamilton Houston, an African American lawyer and NAACP
Litigation Director who helped play a role in
dismantling the Jim Crow laws and helped train future
Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Former South
African President, Nelson Mandela was the second
recipient of this
Lawyer of the Year Award
The National Law Journal, published in
the United States, honoured him as the lawyer of the
year for 2007.
New York City Bar Honorary Membership
The Association of the Bar of the City of
New York granted Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry an
honorary membership in the association on November 17,
2008, recognizing him as a "symbol of the movement for
judicial and lawyer independence in Pakistan."
Doctor of Laws, honoris causa
The Nova Southeastern
University conferred upon him the degree of Doctor of
Laws, honoris causa.
The Honorary Degree Citation of May 10, 2008 recited, inter alia,
as under: -
“The rule of law, the foundation of
democracy, survives only when a nation’s citizens
recognize its importance and, when necessary, defend it.
You and your Pakistani bench and bar colleagues bravely
and tenaciously proclaimed the importance of the rule of
law and vigorously defended it.
“Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, you have
inspired lawyers and lay people throughout the world. In
recognition of your remarkable efforts, the trustees of
Nova Southeastern University are proud to award you the
Honorary Degree of Doctor of Laws with all of its rights
and privileges.”
Justice Dogar new CJ; a number of judges
opt out
ISLAMABAD, Nov 3: A majority of the Supreme Court as
well as the provincial high court judges either refused
or were not invited to take oath under the Provisional
Constitutional Order (PCO) issued after the proclamation
of the state of emergency here on Saturday.
However,
it was not clear whether the judges who were not invited
on Saturday would be asked to take a fresh oath on
Sunday or Monday.
“The development suggests that the judicial activism
spearheaded by now removed Chief Justice Iftikhar
Muhammad Chaudhry also had an effect on the judges,” a
legal expert commented while talking to Dawn.
In the Supreme Court, only four judges out of 19 took
oath under the PCO. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, who is
the fourth in line in the seniority list, was sworn in
as the new Chief Justice of Pakistan by President Pervez
Musharraf. He was elevated as judge of the apex court in
April 2000 when the then chief justice Saiduzzaman
Siddiqui and six other judges who had refused to take
oath under the PCO issued by Gen Musharraf at the time
of the first coup.
Those who took oath under the fresh PCO are Justice
Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar
and Justice M Javed Buttar.
In the Sindh High Court, four judges out of 27 sitting
judges took oath with Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed
declining to take oath.
However the most startling news came from Quetta where
all the five existing judges of the Balochistan High
Court took oath.
In Sindh, Justice Mohammad Afzal Soomro was sworn in as
the Chief Justice who was seventh in line among the
senior judges.
Later, the SHC Chief Justice administered oath to
Justice Munib Ahmed Khan, Justice Mrs Yasmin Abbasi and
Justice Mrs Qaiser Iqbal.
Those who took oath in Quetta are: Chief Justice
Amanullah Yasinzai, Justice Mohammad Nadir Khan, Justice
Akhtar Zaman, Justice Ahmed Khan Lashari and Justice
Kalash Nath Kauli.
In Peshawar, Chief Justice Tariq Pervez Khan and Justice
Shah Jehan Khan refused to take oath and Justice Talaat
Qayyum Qureshi, who is third in seniority, was sworn in
as Chief Justice. Only five of the 13 judges took oath.
They are Justice Ijazul Hassan Khan, Justice Muhammad
Qaim Jan Khan, Justice Salim Khan, Justice Said Maroof
Khan and Justice Hamid Farooq Durrani.
According to an official announcement, Justice Mohammad
Raza and Justice Raj Mohammad Khan would be administered
oath on Monday. Four of the judges were not invited.
Justice Syed Zahid Hussain Bokhari, Justice Nasim
Sikandar, Justice Mohammad Khalid Alvi, Justice Sakhi
Hussain Bokhari, Justice M Bilal Khan, Justice Mohammad
Muzammal Khan, Justice Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, Justice
Hamid Ali Shah, Justice Tariq Shamim, Justice Syed
Asghar Haider, Justice Hasnat Ahmad Khan and Justice
Fazl-e-Miran Chohan were administered oath by the
Peshawar High Court Chief Justice.
In Lahore, 13 of 31 judges took oath. Four other judges
in the circuit benches are expected to take oath on
Sunday or Monday.
ORDER PCO JUDGES
04.02.2008.
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
KARACHI
C.P. No.D-1020/2007
C.P. No.D-1125/2007
Order with signature of Judge
Present:
Muhammad Afzal Soomro
CJ
Munib Ahmed Khan-J
Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui-J
Abdur Rehman Faruq
Pirzada-J
Rana M. Shamim-J
Mr.
Rasheed A. Razvi, Advocate
President Sindh High Court Bar Association
Dr.
Muhammad Farogh Naseem
Advocate General Sindh (on Court notice)
Mr.
Rizwan A. Siddiqui
Deputy Attorney General (on Court notice)
Mr.
Masood A. Noorani
Additional Advocate General Sindh
M/s. Iqtidar Ali Hashmi, Asraf Qazi and Narayan Das
Advocates
For
officials.
JUDGMENT
The brief facts of giving rise to the present petition
are that the then Incharge Registrar vide a letter dated
21.05.2007 submitted certain facts for orders before the
former Chief Justice of this Court. A reading of this
letter confirms that the Incharge Registrar had
intimated the former Chief Justice of this Court about
the facts that on 12.05.2007, the High Court building
was surrounded by a mob which did not allow Advocates
and staff members/judges of the High Court from entering
into the Court premises. He also stated in this letter
that there were blockades, which prevented a hampered
the access to the High Court. Apart from this the letter
also contained reference to some statements of
subordinate staff such a drivers and protocol officers
of some of the then Judges. It is also suggested in this
letter that the police stood as a silent expatiator and
too no steps with a vie to provide free access to the
High Court. This letter dated 21.05.2007 of the Incharge
Registrar was converted into a Constitutional Petition
and a bench of this Court comprising seven members
commenced hearing. Te bench appointed M/s. Khalid Anwar
and Mr. Qazi Faiz Essa as Amicus Curiae to assist the
Court. During the course of the hearing contempt
applications were moved, which were responded by the
alleged contemnors/officials and some hundred affidavits
were filed by members of the General Public.
2. Dr.
Muhammad Farogh Naseem, the learned Advocate General of
Sindh has raised a number of preliminary objections and
submitted that the petition (i.e. C.P. No.D-1125/2007)
itself is neither maintainable nor any manageable
standard is available with the Court to decide it. He
has further submitted that the letter of the Incharge
Registrar dated 21.05.2007 did not contain any prayer
and thus the Court was not called upon to decide any
particular dispute on the basis of such a letter. The
precise objections of the learned Advocate General are
as follows: -
a)
The
first objection is that under Article 199 of the
Constitution the High Court has no power to assume suo
motu jurisdiction and a petition can only be preferred
by an aggrieved person in contradistinction to the
provisions of Article 184(3) of the Constitution, which
prescribes the power of the Supreme Court to entertain a
Writ Petition directly. In this respect the learned
Advocate General has placed reliance upon Fazal-e-Haq,
Accountant-General, West Pakistan v. The State
PLD 1960 Sc 295, Syed Gulam Farid etc. v. The
Officer on Spl. Duty etc. 1973 Law Notices 618,
Aktar Abbas & others v. Nayyar Hussain 1982
SCMR 549, Haji Muhammad Sadiq & others v.
Khairati 1984 CLC 2239, Juvenile Jail, Landhi,
Karachi (Suo Motu Notice) 1990 P.Cr.L.J. 1231,
Sheikh Liaquat Hussain, v. FOP PLD 1999 SC
504, Ali Muhammad through legal heirs and others
v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others 2001
SCMR 1822;
b)
The
second argument of the learned Advocate General is that
under Article 199 of the Constitution the High Court
cannot assume the role of an investigator and the letter
of the Incharge Registrar could not made a basis so as
to launch an open-ended inquiry. In this regard,
reliance is placed on Shahnaz Begum v. The
Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Sindh and
Baluchistan and others PLD 1971 SC 677 and Brig.
(R) Imtiaz Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan
through Secretary, Interior Division, Islamabad and 2
others 1994 SCMR 2142;
c)
The
third argument advanced by the learned Advocate General
is to the effect that the matter at best constitutes the
adjudication of disputed questions of fact and cannot be
resolved in constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance is
placed on Muhammad Saeed Azher v. Martial Law
Administrator, Punjab and others 1979 SCMR 484 and
Revenue Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.
and 8 others v. Mst. Bachoo and others 2001
SCMR 155;
d)
Finally
and most importantly the learned Advocate General Sindh
has submitted that the state functionaries under the
Constitution are well within their powers to deny access
to roads and premises by way of blockades/barricades
with the view to avert a bigger threat to life and
property. This would only be a reasonable restriction
imposable under the law and Constitution. Further
elaborating upon this point the learned Advocate General
Sindh emphasized that with the blockades and barricades
a bigger conflict between some unruly mobs was averted
God forbid had there been no such barricades the death
and injury tolls could have been much worse. Also he has
submitted that in this case the Court lacks a manageable
standard to take cognizance and grant relief. Reference
has also been made to the killings in India in the
aftermath of the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi,
the then Prime Minister of India and some other
instances from the foreign jurisdictions. In particular
reference has been made to Rupinder Singh Sodhi
v. UOI AIR 1983 SC 65, Rajendran v.
Vayalar OP No.294 of 1983 decided by the Kerala High
Court and Peoples Union for Democratic Rights and
others v. Ministry of Home Affairs AIR 1985
Delhi 268;
3.
Adopting the arguments of the learned A.G. Sindh, Mr.
Rizwan Siddiqui, the learned Deputy Attorney General and
Mr. Masood A. Noorani, the learned Additional A.G. Sindh
have submitted that more than 80 FIRs have been lodged
and the investigation is under process. They further
submitted the compensation to the relatives of the dead
has been granted by the provincial government and if
there are any other claimants they can come forward and
the state is willing to accommodate them. M/s. Iqtidar
Ali Hashmi, M. Ashraf Qazi and Narayan Das Advocates who
appeared for some of the officials had taken all the
adequate steps to avoid a bigger conflict and it was
incorrect to suggest that they were either silent
expatiators or did not respond to the directions of the
Court. Reliance was also placed on the affidavits filed
by the officials.
4. On
14.11.2007 none appeared for the Bar Associations and no
appearance was caused by the learned amicus curiae. As a
result fresh notices were issued to all concerned and
the matter was adjourned to 13.12.2007, when again the
representatives of the Bar Associations and amicus
curiae were called absent. Notices were repeated for
14.12.2007 and again none for the complainants or amicus
curiae appeared. Yet again notices were issued for
15.01.2008, on which date ________________
______________ appearance for the Bar Associations and
amicus curiae. After hearing the arguments of the
learned Advocate General. Deputy Attorney General
Additional Attorney General
_______________________________________________________case
would be concluded. On 25.01.2008, Mr. Rasheed A. Razvi,
the President of the Sindh High Court Bar Association
appeared and filed a statement in writing on behalf of
the Bar Association. In this statement, it was alleged
that Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary and Justice
Sabihuddin Ahmed were still the respective Chief
Justices of Pakistan and the Sindh High Court and the
members of the earlier full bench comprising 7 judges
hearing this case were still the judges of this Court,
their removal was illegal and they were the judges who
were competent to hear this case. In this statement it
was also alleged that the Emergency dated 03.11.2007
imposed by President Pervez Musharraf and the Provincial
Constitutional Order, 2007 (hereafter: “PCO, 2007”) were
illegal.
5.
Responding to the above statement, the learned Advocate
General clarified that the Emergency dated 03.11.2007 so
also the PCO, 2007 had been recently validated by a
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence the
statement in writing submitted by the learned President
of the Bar Association had no legal basis and was
contrary to the said judgment of the Supreme Court.
6. We
have heard the rival contentions and perusal the record
and the plethora case law cited at the bar. At the
outset it will be fist imperative to tackle the
statement dated 25.01.2008 filed by Mr. Rasheed A. Razvi,
the learned President of the Sindh High Court Bar
Association. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent
judgment has been pleased to validate the Emergency and
PCO, 2007 dated 03.11.2007. In this judgment the Supreme
Court has also been pleased to observed that the removal
of the judges under the PCO, 2007 is a past and closed
transaction. The statement submitted by the learned
President of the Bar apart from being factually
incorrect is without any legal basis and hence rejected.
7. This brings us
to the preliminary objections raised by the learned
Advocate General. Article 199 of the Constitution
prescribes the writ jurisdiction. A plaint reading of
the said article 199 would reveal that the machinery
provided hereunder could only be activated upon an
application of an “aggrieved person”. The constitution
is a living document and no interpretation thereto can
be offered which is pedantic or calculated to stagnate
the same. It is now a settled principle of
constitutional jurisprudence that the provisions of the
Constitution cannot be afforded a static interpretation.
In contemporary times a full bench of the Supreme Court
in Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sarif v. President of Pakistan
PLD 1993 SC 473, while relying upon the Benazir Bhutto
case PLD 1988 SC 416, confirms the corresponding need to
re-evaluate the essence of the provisions of the
Constitution so as to keep abreast with the changing
conditions of the society and the vision for the future.
In Presson Manufacturing limited v. Secretary, Ministry
of Petroleum 1995 MLD 15 a learned Single Judge of the
Lahore High Court recognized judicial review to be a
dynamic concept, requiring a progressive growth to met
the changing times. Relying upon F.W. Maitland the
learned Judge was pleased to observe as follows:
-
“As an ideation
judicial review has always been a dynamic concept and,
to quote FW Maitland, each generation has enormous power
to shape its own laws”. Its progressive growth with
passage of time would, bring into its fold newer
subjects and enrich its armoury with bolder concepts”.
The above excerpt from
the judgment of the Lahore High Court was cited with
approval by a Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Qalandro v. State 1997 MLD 1632. A full
bench of our Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ardeshir
Cowasjee v. KBCA 1999 SCMR 2883, while
elaborating upon the concept of “Locus Standi” within
the meaning of article 199 of the Constitution, was
pleased to hold that a liberal interpretation is
required in this context. Citing with approval an
excerpt from “Judicial Review of Administrative Actions”
by De Smith, Woolf and Jawell, 5th Edition,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as
follows: -
“The general approach
to the concept of locus standi in the context of
“sufficient interest” can be summarized as follows:-
(1)
“Sufficient Interest” has to receive a generous
interpretation. It has to be treated as a broad and
flexible text.
(2)
Only
issues as to standing where the answer is obvious should
be resolved on the application for leave. In other cases
lack of standing should not prevent leave being granted.
(3)
Issues
as to standing at the leave stage do not depend on the
remedy which is then being claimed.
(4)
If the
applicant has a special expertise in the subject-matter
of the application that will be a factor in establishing
sufficient interest. This applied whether the applicant
is an individual or some type of association. The fact
that the applicant’s responsibility in relation to the
subject of the application is recognized by statue is a
strong indication of sufficient interest.
(5)
A great
variety of factors are capable of qualifying as
sufficient interest. They are not confined to property
or financial or other legal interests. They can include
civic (or community) environmental and cultural
interests. The interest can be future or contingent.
(6)
The
gravity of the issue which is the subject of the
application is a factor taken into account in
determining the outcome of questions of standing. The
more serious the issue at stake the less significance
will be attached to arguments based on the applicant’s
alleged lack of standing.
In deciding what, if
any, remedy to grant as a matter of discretion, the
Court will take into account the extend of the
applicant’s interest. At this stage different remedies
may require a different involvement by the applicant
The concept of locus
standi has been whittled down inasmuch as the expression
“sufficient interest”, inter alia, includes civic (or
community) environmental and cultural interest.”
We
have further been able to place our hands on Phillips
Electrical Industries v. Pakistan 2000 YLR
2724, where again the need for a dynamic interpretation
of law, rather than its stagnation, was reemphasized. In
this case the Court took cognizance of the appalling
condition of the Customs. Excise and Sales Tax Tribunal
at Karachi and prescribed guidelines for its function.
8.
Although the learned Advocate General may be correct to
the extent that under article 199 this Court is
precluded from taking up a suo motu action, the concept
of “aggrieved person” has to be visited liberally,
keeping in view the social, political and economic
development of the society. The manner in which concepts
change and what may be acceptable at a given point of
time may be unacceptable at another time in history,
requires ponderance. What may be acceptable now may be
totally unacceptable in the future. To illustrate this
point a simple example comes to our minds. At one point
of time in history slavery was fully accepted in the
civil society but upon the advent of Islam, Prophet
(SAW), the zenith of God Almighty’s creation, deprecated
slavery. In modern times the Supreme Court of the United
States of America in Dred Scott v. Stanford
(1857), by a majority of 7 against 2, found that a black
person, slave or free could not be a citizen of the
United States of America. When the civil war was finally
over, the 13th Amendment in 1967 ended
slavery, while the 14th Amendment in 1868
gave citizenship to the blacks. The cases cited as
Fazle Haque Accountant General v. The State
PLD 1960 SC 295 and Ali Muhammad v. Chief
Settlement Commissioner 2001 SCMR 1822 confirm that
under article 199 the High Court cannot assume suo motu
jurisdiction. And we are bound by such pronouncements.
However, in this case the letter of the Incharge
Registrar dated 21.05.2007 was converted into a
Constitutional Petition. In other words, there was an
applicant and we cannot accept the contention that the
proceedings were suo motu. In Nazim F. Haji v.
Commissioner Karachi PLD 1993 Karachi 79 the Chief
of the Citizens’ Police Liaison Committee moved an
application to the ten Chief Justice of this Court,
challenging the move of the Government to requisition
private vehicles. Nasir Aslam Zahid CJ, as he then was,
converted the application into a constitutional petition
U/A 199 and accorded relief, restraining the provincial
government from requisitioning private vehicles. The
Courts are the guardians of the Constitution and
protectors of Civil and fundamental rights of the
populace. Therefore, a purposive and liberal
interpretation is required to be given to the provisions
of the Constitution, so as to extend the mechanism and
parameters of relief. Article 199 does not spell out any
format in which the application is to be submitted to
the Court. The cognizance by the Court under article 199
cannot be circumvented or hampered by making a fetish of
technicalities. The letter of the Incharge Registrar
dated 21.05.2007, could well be treated as a complaint
or application within the meaning of article 199 and in
our opinion this cognizance cannot be construed as a suo
motu assumption of jurisdiction.
9. The
next question is as to whether in fact the Incharge
Registrar had disclosed a sufficient interest so as to
be considered as an “aggrieved person” within the
meaning of article 199. We have already cited the
judgment of Ardeshir Cowasjee v. KBCA 1999
SCMR 2883, which requires laxity in interpreting the
term “sufficient interest” for the purposes of locus
standi. Although to maintain a Civil Suit strict legal
rights, stricto sensu, are required, to maintain a
constitutional petition only sufficient interest needs
to be disclosed in the performance of a legal duty (see
Abdul Waheed Butt v. Mrs. Asma 1989 CLC
1936). A dynamic interpretation of the term “sufficient
interest” so as to construe the requirements of locus
standi under article 199 would follow that the Incharge
Registrar had sufficient interest in facilitating the
access of and entry to the learned Judges, lawyers and
staff into the premises of the High Court building. Thus
the preliminary objection on the aspect of locus standi
is also over-ruled.
10. The
other objections of the learned Advocate General seem
more sustainable. It seems to be a well settled
proposition that article 199 of the Constitution cannot
be employed to launch any investigation or inquiry. In
Shahnaz Begum v. Hon’ble Judges of the High
Court of Sindh and Balochistan PLD 1971 SC 677 the
Supreme Court over turned the Orders of the High Court
launching an inquiry into a criminal case which was
under investigation by the police. In this case, the
High Court had taken cognizance in view of the wide
publicity of the incident in the press, which was
deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The High Court
had ordered a “preliminary investigation” which was set
aside by the Supreme Court. In Brigadier (R) Imtiaz
Ahmed v. GOP 1994 SCMR 2141 it was held that
the effect of registration of a case under article 154
of the Cr.P.C. was to set into motion the investigation
process by the police in accordance with law. It was
held that the High Court under article 199 could not
assume the role of an investigator, which alone could
only be done by the authority entrusted to register and
investigate the case in accordance with law. Admittedly,
about 80 FIRs have been lodged in respect of the events
that had transpired on 12.05.2007 and some of these FIRs
have been lodged at the behest of the learned members
and office bearers of the learned members and office
bearers of the Bar. The Court under article 199 cannot
assume the role of an investigator except issue
directions to expedite investigations and proceed in
accordance with law. Thus this petitioner seeking to
launch an open ended inquiry would not be permissible
under the law and the Constitution. The objection of the
learned Advocate General on this score is hereby
sustained and on this score CPL D-1125/2007 is not found
to be maintainable.
11. There
is however, a wider aspect of the case which needs to be
addressed. Admittedly some parts of the city of Karachi,
in particular, the roads/entrances leading to the High
Court building, were hindered and barricaded. The
placement of barricades so as to avoid a bigger conflict
is now an internationally recognized method of
mitigating and averting loss to life and property. In
Mehtab Jan v. Municipal Committee PLD 1958
Lahore 929 a prohibition on certain citizens to visit
specified parts of the town/city was construed as
amounting to a reasonable restriction, aimed at
furthering the public interest. In Rupinder Singh
v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 65 obstructions
were placed on the Highways so as to check the members
of the AKALI DAL from disrupting the Asian Games. The
Supreme Court of India held that the placement of
obstructions on the Highways was justified since a wider
disruption could have broken. The precise observations
of the India Supreme Court are noted as follows: -
“Having given our
anxious consideration to the submissions made by Mr.
Hardev Singh, we agree that no one is entitled to
barricade a highway so as to prevent members of the
public from using it while they are on their lawful
business in the pursuit of normal avocations of life.
But the police, whose duty it is to enforce law and
order in the wake of threatened mass agitations which
are necessary likely to lead to beach of public peace
are entitled in the discharge of their duty to impose
reasonable restraints on the physical movement of
members of the public in Order to protection (sic) of
public property and the avoidance of the needless
inconvenience to other citizens in their lawful
pursuits. But all such restraints on personal liberty,
if at all, have to be commensurate with the object which
furnishes their justification. They must be minimal and
cannot exceed the constraints of the particular
situation, either in nature or in duration. Above all,
they cannot be used as engines of oppression,
prosecution, harassment or the like. The sanctity of
person and of privacy has to be maintained at all costs
and that cannot ever be violated under the guise of
maintenance of law and order.”
12. The
above precedence case from India would confirm tat the
placement of barricades in a given situation may be
unlawful, whereas in another situation the same would be
fully justified. Admittedly, on 12.05.2007, the
atmosphere as highly charged. Despite placement of the
barriers some unruly mobs entered into cross fire,
resulting into injuries and causalities.
13.
Reliance by the Advocate Genera on Peoples’ Union for
Democratic Rights v. Ministry of Home Affairs
AIR 1985 Delhi 268 is very relevant. The facts leading
to this case are that in the aftermath of the
assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the ten Prime
Minister of India, there was rampant rioting, resulting
in the damage to private property and killings f many
Sikhs. The petition in the nature of a public interest
litigation was filed wherein it was claimed that the law
enforcement agencies had miserably failed to provide
adequate security, the Court was requested to
investigate the matter or direct the appointment of a
Commission for inquiry and fix responsibility upon the
members of the executive and politicians who may have
either failed to control the situation or who were
responsible in the incitement of such a large scale
carnage. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court
dismissed the petition on the ground that the Court
possessed no jurisdiction to assume the role of an
investigating agency. While the Court expressed its
dismay upon the impugned events, it was held that the
High Court in public interest litigation cannot issue
directions to appoint a Commission for inquiry. The
Court was pleased to observe that a number of FIRs had
been lodged and thus it would not interfere with such a
process. In our opinion this judgment from the Indian
jurisdiction clinches the issue on all fours. The large
scale carnage, which was the subject matter of the
latter case, was much more escalated than the incident
that took place on 12.05.2007. The Delhi High Court did
not interfere. It seems that in the absence of
manageable standard available to the Court relief was
declined. It was also observed by the Delhi High Court
that despite the untoward incidents initially, normalcy
had returned subsequently and tat was effected with the
efforts of the law enforcement agencies.
14. In
another case i.e. Rajendran v. Vayalar OP
294 of 1983 (un-reported and cited in “People, Law and
Justice”, volume-one, by Sageeta Ahuja, at pages 99 and
100) the Kerala High Court had to deal with a public
interest petition moved by a journalist requesting for
an investigation into the incident of rioting which took
place in Alleppey on 29.12.1982, when some Muslims were
observing a particular festival. It was contended by the
petitioner that the police received directions not to
act with the result that one man was burnt to death and
the airport had become unserviceable. It was argued that
the provisions of the Indian Penal Code had been
infringed both by the rioters and the administration,
which had failed to prevent the riot. The Kerala High
Court while dismissing the petition observed that there
were certain limits to the constitutional jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution (Paramateria
of our Article 199 of the Pakistani Constitution)
exercisable by the High Courts. It was further observed
that what had been done could not be un-done and thus
the remedy under the writ jurisdiction was not
available.
15. The
above precedented cases from the Delhi and Kerala High
Courts provide some guidance so as to tackle the present
case. Following the latter, we thus decline to interfere
in the present case. However, the events of 12.05.2007
require each one of us to ponder for a while and retrace
our steps. While a set of individuals may feel
aggrieved, they have every right to vent their grievance
but the interest of the country must be kept paramount.
Actions by certain individuals may corrupt into
uncontrollable state of affairs, resulting in large
scale rioting. This would materially disrupt the law and
order situation, which in turn is likely to adversely
impact upon the economy and create a sense of insecurity
and unrest in the minds of the citizens at large. All
the stakeholders, whether they are the members or office
bearers of the Bar Associations, members of the
Judiciary, Executive or Political Parties, have to
discharge their functions within their respective
spheres with responsibility and care.
16. The
members of the law enforcement and other agencies have
filed their respective affidavits/counter affidavits in
which they have assured that they have discharged their
functions to the best of their capability, keeping in
view the factual situation at hand. the Courts cannot be
oblivious to the ground realities that had prevailed on
12.05.2007. Thus in our view this is not a fit case
where the Court should extend interference, except
express a hope with grave concern that in future all the
stakeholders would discharge their respective functions
with due care and responsibility, keeping the interest
of our beloved country above everything else.
17. In
light terms of the above observations CP No.D-1125/2007
so also all the pending interlocutory and contempt
applications in the said petition and also in the
disposed off CP No.D-1020/2007 are disposed off with no
Order as to costs.
18.
Before parting, it is expected that although the
Government has assured to have given compensation to the
relatives of the dead, in case some are left they may
approach the Government, which shall expeditiously grant
compensation, as promised by the government itself.
Dated: 04.02.2008.
Sd/-
Mohd. Afzal Soomro
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
Munib Ahmed Khan
JUDGE
Sd/-
Nadeem Hussain
JUDGE
Sd/-
Abdul Rehman
JUDGE
Sd/-
Rana M. Shamim
JUDGE
(1)
For order on CMA No.3296 (08 Urgent)
(2)
For orders on CMA No.1665/2008,
(Application U/S 151)
(3)
For order on CMA No.1666/2008,
(Application U/S 151)
(4)
For order on CMA No.1667/2008,
(Application U/S 151)
(5)
For order on CMA No.3297/2008, (U/O 39
Rule 1 & 2)
_______________________________________________________________
For
production of petition on 24.03.2008
31.08.2009
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH, KARACHI
C.P. No.D-1144/2007
Date
Order with signature of Judge
1. For hearing of CMA No.8337 of 2009.
2. For hearing of CMA No.5311 of 2009.
3. For hearing of CMA No.1939 of 2009.
4. For hearing of CMA No.1190 of 2009.
5. For hearing of CMA No.3297 of 2009.
6. For hearing of CMA No.1665 of 2009.
7. For hearing of CMA No.1166 of 2009.
8. For hearing of CMA No.1669 of 2009.
**************
31.08.2009
Petitioner Syed Muhammad Iqbal Kazmi, preset in person.
Mr.
Ishtiaque Raza learned Deputy Attorney General of
Pakistan.
Mr.
Miran Muhammad Shah learned Assistant Advocate General
Sindh.
*************
Attendance
of the official respondents for the time being is
dispensed with Mr. Ashtiaque Raza learned D.A.G. states
that he has not received copies of the listed
applications. Mr. Kazmi states that though the copy has
been supplied in the office but he undertakes to provide
the same to him during the course of the day.
It appears
that in another petition being C.P. No.D-1125 of 2007,
one of the members of this bench namely Muhammad Ather
Saeed-J has made his grievance as to the incident of 12th
May, 2007, therefore, this matter may not be fixed
before a bench in which one of us namely Muhammad Ather
Saeed-J is a member.
Let counter
and rejoinder to all the pending applications, if any,
be filed before the next date.
The
comments have been filed by respondent No.1 S.H.O.
Jamshed Quarter. Let this matter be fixed as directed
above.
C.P.
No.D-1144/2007
(1)
For orders on CMA No.8337/2009.
(2)
For orders on CMA No.5311/2009 C/A 199)
(3)
For orders on CMA No.1939/2009 (Applied
for full bench)
(4)
For hearing of CMA No.1190/2009.
(5)
For hearing of CMA No.1191/2009
(6)
For hearing of CMA No.3297/2008
(7)
For hearing of CMA No.1665/2008
(8)
For hearing of CMA No.1166/2008
(9)
For hearing of CMA No.1669/2008
19-01-2009
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH, KARACHI
C.P. No.D-1144/2007
Date Order with signature of Judge
1. For orders on CMA No.1190/2008.
2. For orders on CMA No.1191/2008.
3. For orders on CMA No.3297/2008. (Application
U/O 39).
4. For orders on CMA No.1665/2008. (Application
U/S 151).
5. For orders on CMA No.1666/2008. (Application
U/S 151).
6. For orders on CMA No.1667/2008. (Application
U/S 151).
________________________________________________________________________
(Attention of the
Honourable Court is respectfully invited that this
Honourable Chief Justice Order dt. 18.12.2008 passed
offence not may kindly be seen. Hag-B).
Petitioner in person
Mr. Muhammad Ashraf
Khan Mughal, DAG
Mr. Anwar Karim,
Assistant A.G.
1 to 6 notice to
learned DAG as well as Assistant General, Sindh.
Sd/-
Khilji Arif Husain
Judge
Sd/-
Muhammad Noor
HIGH COURT OF
SINDH AT KARACHI
CONST. PETITION
NO.D-1144/2007
1. Syed
Muhammad Iqbal Kazmi, petitioner in person in the above
matter has filed Six Misc. Applications being CMA
No.1190, 1191, 3297, 1665, 1666 and 1667/2008 on the
grounds mentioned therein.
2. It is
submitted that the above matter was fixed for Katcha
Peshi and Orders on Misc. Applications before Full Bench
comprising Honourable Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Muhammad Afzal Soomro, as he then was, Honourable Mr.
Justice Munib Ahmed Khan, Honourable Justice Mrs. Qaiser
Iqbal, Honourable Mr. Justice Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui and
Honourable Mr. Justice Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, as he
then was. Same was dismissed as withdrawn vide Order
dated 19.11.2007, which may kindly be perused is flagged
“A”.
3. Orders
are respectfully solicited weather the above Misc.
Applications may be fixed before Full Bench as may be
constituted by the Honourable Chief Justice to hear the
above Misc. Applications.
O R
4. Any other order as deems fit may
kindly be passed.
Sd/-
In English
Asstt. Registrar Roster-I.
Sd/- In English
Deputy Registrar (Judl.)
HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE.
Vide order of full Court dated 19.11.2007, this petition
was not disposed of on merits, but dismissed as
withdrawn after the listen application be fixed in Court
before D.B. according to justice.
Sd/- In English
18/12 |
