2005 PLP 337 (YLR)

"I have already received telephonic message from P.A. of Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate General, Lahore at about 2‑40 p.m. on 4‑8‑2004 for suspension of operation of his order/notice dated 28‑7‑2004 but said that I have disconnected the power supply/connection of the petitioner's Ice Factory premises on 5‑8‑2004 at about 12‑00 (Noon)." The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondents Nos.3 and 4 have wilfully and deliberately lowered the dignity of the order of this Court by using such undesirable language and not complying the order dated 4‑8‑2004 and committed gross contempt and are liable to be proceeded under Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003. The case was fixed on 10‑8‑2004. The learned counsel of the petitioner was directed to hand over copy of the writ petition along with all the annexures to Mr. Muhammad Akbar Tarrar, Addl. A.‑G. Mr. Abdul Rehman Madni, Advocate/standing counsel of the respondents and Mian Hamid‑ud‑Din Kasuri, Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan, who were directed to assist the Court on the next date of hearing after obtaining instructions from respective respondents. The case was adjourned for 18‑8‑2004. Messrs Hafiz Muhammad Yousaf, Advocate and Abdul Rehman Madni, Advocate entered appearance on 18‑8‑2004 and requested adjournment, which was opposed by the learned counsel of the petitioner. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, case was adjourned for 31‑8‑2004. On 31‑8‑2004 Mr. Ilyas Khan Advocate got adjournment on the ground that he had received fax message from the respondents, which was allowed and the case was adjourned for 2‑9‑2004.

3. The respondents have filed report and parawise comments in Court and copy of the same has been handed over to the learned counsel of the petitioner. The respondents have taken a‑stand in reply of para.6 that petitioner did not appear before the respondents in terms of order dated 4‑8‑2004 on 9‑8‑2004. The supply of the electricity of the petitioner has been restored by the respondents‑on 16‑8‑2004. The learned counsel of the respondents on the basis of the parawise comments submit that petitioner is to make the payment of arrears plus current bill which amounted to Rs.2,55,

558. The respondents have also mentioned the conduct of the petitioner by approaching different Courts in para.7. They further submit that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.

4. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that respondents have committed contempt of this Court after intimation of the direction of this Court on 4‑8‑2004 at 2‑40 p.m. disconnected the connection of the petitioner on 5‑8‑2004. He further submits that he has no knowledge qua restoration of the connection of the petitioner, as the petitioner is not present in Court. He further submits that matter qua the outstanding of the respondents is pending adjudication before the Inspector.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

6. It is settled principle of law that this Court has ample jurisdiction to look into the subsequent events at the time of deciding the cases as per law laid down by the Division Bench of the Karachi High Court and the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:‑‑ Nasir Jamal v. Zubeda Begum 1990 CLC 1069 Mst. Amina Begum etc. v. Mehr Ghulam Dastgir PLD 1978 SC

220. It is also settled principle of law that contempt is always between the contemner and the Court. As the respondents, as mentioned above, have taken a definite stand that the electricity connection of the petitioner has been restored by the respondents on 16‑8‑2004, therefore, I am not inclined to proceed against respondents Nos.3 and 4 under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. It is also settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character. He who seeks equity must come in the Court with clean hands. The respondents have taken a definite stand in reply of para.6 that the petitioner did not appear before respondents as directed by this Court vide orders dated 4‑8‑2004 on 9‑8‑2004, therefore, petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. It is better and appropriate to reproduce litigation between the parties as highlighted by respondents in para.7 as under:‑‑ (1) Writ Petition No. 13868 of 2003 Sarfraz Hussain v. WAPDA. The petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the application of the petitioner within 15 days. Copy of the order is enclosed as Annexure‑R/1. (2) Cr. Org. No. 1156‑W of 2003 Sarfraz Hussain v. Ibrahim Makhoka etc. The contempt application was moved which was disposed of with the observation that no contempt whatsoever has been committed. Dispose of. Copy of the order is attached as Annexure‑R/2. (3) Writ Petition No.3605 of 2004 Sarfraz Hussain v. WAPDA etc. The petition was disposed of with the observation that connection to petitioner's premises shall be restored within 24 hours of the deposit of the re‑connection charges and payment of Rs.50,000 as first instalment. It was further directed that if WAPDA has granted the facility of payment in six instalments to any consumer in the area, petitioner shall be granted the same facility. The petition was disposed of. A copy of the order is attached as Annexure‑R/3. (4) Cr. Org. No.500‑W of 2004. The petition was disposed of with the observation that "let petitioner appear before the respondent un any date during the next week". Copy of the order is attached as Annexure‑R/4. (5) Writ Petition No.1109 of 2004. The writ petition was against FIA Authorities, which was disposed of with a direction to Inspector to bring on record the version of the petitioner. A copy of the order is enclosed as Annexure‑R/5. (6) Cr. Org. No.474‑W of 2004. The petition was disposed of with the observation that no case of contempt is made out. A copy of the order is attached as Annexure R/6. (7) Writ Petition No.8025 of 2004. The petitioner did not press this petition and it was disposed of copy of the order is attached as Annexure‑R/7. (8) Writ Petition No.8941 of 2004. The petition was disposed of on the ground that the petition entails factual inquiry which exercise cannot be undertaken in a Constitutional petition. Copy of the order dated 8‑6‑2004 is attached as Annexure‑R/8 (9) Writ Petition No.13064 of 2004. The petition was disposed of with the direction that the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.4 in his office at 11‑00 a.m. On 9‑8‑2004. A copy of the order is attached as Annexure‑R/9 (10) The titled petition is pending before this Honourable Court. In view of what has been discussed above, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner in view of the conduct of the petitioner as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Rana Muhammad Arshad's case 1998 SCMR 1462 and Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC

236. This petition has no merits and the same dismissed. H.B.T./S‑232/L Petition dismissed.