YLR 2003

2003 PLP 3045 (YLR)

Mehr WARIS HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus S.H.O. and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ petitions Nos.21603 of 2002, 280, 447 of 2003, Criminal Original No.6/W of 2003 in Writ Petition No.2001 of 2002, decided on 20th January, 2003.
Honorable Judges
Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, CJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2003 PLP 3045 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, CJ
Parties Mehr WARIS HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus S.H.O. and others — Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 3045 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 3045 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, CJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 3045 (YLR) (Mehr WARIS HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus S.H.O. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing: 20th January, 2003.

Headnotes / Summary

Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Summoning of civilians by Army Monitoring Teams‑‑‑Grievance of petitioners was that officers of Pakistan Army, who were members of Army Monitoring, Teams were forcing petitioners to appear before them in order to settle monitory disputes with third parties

Law Officers were unable to produce any law, order or instrument by virtue of which Army Monitoring Teams were established or were conferred any such particular powers or were assigned any of such duties

Army Monitoring Teams were assigned certain administrative functions by the Authorities, but they were not empowered to deal with any complaint made by a private person to settle any dispute, criminal or civil or to pass any order on an application received from private persons‑‑‑Members of Army. Monitoring Team and Complaint Cells were not vested with any power to summon any civilian through police functionaries, who were assigned to serve with them by the civil administration‑‑‑Police functionaries, admitted in the Court that they had been summoning people to police stations in order to produce them before the Army Officials‑‑ Such action on the part of police functionaries was also unwarranted and was unlawful‑‑‑Entire exercise taken by Army Monitoring Teams or Complaint Cells whereby they had been resolving monetary disputes or disputes of civil nature between different parties, was illegal and unlawful for which they could be prosecuted on civil or criminal side by aggrieved persons‑‑ Petitioners being aggrieved persons, would be at liberty to have recourse to any civil or criminal remedy available to them in order to get undone wrongs done, to them by respondents. 2001 MLD 1871 ref. Dr. Danishwar Malik, Dy. Attorney General. of Pakistan. Tariq Shamim, Standing Counsel for Federation of Pakistan. Ch. M. Nasim Sabir, Addl. A.‑G.

Judgment & Decree

Dr. Danishwar Malik, Dy. Attorney General. of Pakistan. Tariq Shamim, Standing Counsel for Federation of Pakistan. Ch. M. Nasim Sabir, Addl. A.‑G. Date of hearing: 20th January, 2003. Writ Petitions Nos.21603 of 2002, 280 of 2003, 447 of 2003 and Criminal Original No.6/W of 2003 in Writ Petition No.20015 of 2002 shall be disposed of by this order.

2. Under consideration petitions were filed with the grievance that officers of Pakistan Army, who are members of Army Monitoring Teams were forcing the petitioner to appear before them in order to settle monetary disputes with third parties. The petitioners were summoned through police functionaries of various police stations and then were forced to come to terms with the applicants, who submitted applications on various grounds before the Army Monitoring Teams or the Army Officers, who have been impleaded as respondents in the petitions, as well.

3. Notices of the petitions were given to Federation of Pakistan and the Province of Punjab. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Law Officers were heard in the matter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to 2001 MLD 1871 and order dated 23‑2‑2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 1081 of 2001 by this Court and numerous other precedents to urge that Army Officials had no authority to summon the civilians or private persons to appear before them in connection with any matter, whatsoever. It was argued that the respondents Army officials were summoning the petitioners to settle civil disputes for which they had no authority. It was argued that Army Monitoring Teams or Complaint Cells were not constituted by any law or instrument and the officials did not have any power under any law of the land under which they could summon the petitioners or force them to come to terms with third parties and everything done by them, was illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction. It was also argued that the Army Officials were liable to be prosecuted on civil and criminal side for the coercion and misuse of authority, particularly, when the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan stood revived and the Army Authorities were not vested with any administrative power to deal with civil matters. Learned Law Officers, on the other hand, submitted that Army Monitoring Teams were established in order to oversee working of the Departments and they also admitted that members of the Army Monitoring Teams received applications from citizens and also settled certain disputes. However, when called upon to refer to any order passed by the competent authority, namely, the Chief Executive of the country, whereby these Teams were constituted or given any power the Law Officers were unable to produce any law, order or instrument by virtue of which the Army Monitoring Teams were established or were conferred any particular powers or were assigned any duty. The Army Monitoring Teams, it appears, were assigned certain administrative functions by the Army Authorities but they were not empowered to deal with any complaint made by a private person to settle any, dispute, criminal or civil, or to pass any order on an application received from private persons. The members of the Army Monitoring Teams or Complaint Cells were not vested with any power to in any civilian through police functionaries, who surprisingly were assigned to service with them by the civil administration. The police functionaries, Who appeared in Court, admitted that they has been summoning people to police stations in order to produce them before the respondents Army Officials. This action on the part of the police functionaries was also unwarranted and was unlawful. The entire exercise taken by Army Monitoring Teams or Complaint Cells. whereby they had been resolving monetary disputes or disputes of civil nature between I different parties, was illegal and unlawful for which they can be prosecuted on civil or criminal side by aggrieved persons, who has suffered on account of illegal orders or unlawful actions taken by the respondents Army Officials or other members of the Army Teams., Learned Law Officers of the Federation and the Province of Punjab admitted that these Teams/Cells stood abolished after revival of the Constitution. The police functionaries who were assigned to there teams cells were also withdrawn by the Police Department and at present the Army Monitoring Teams are neither in existence nor are performing any functions.

4. Therefore, the present petitions are disposed of. The aggrieved persons however shall be at liberty to have recourse to any civil or criminal remedy available to them in order to get undone the wrongs done to them, by the respondents. H.B.T./W‑85/L Order accordingly.