2013 PLP 489 (YLR)

For the disposal of instant application it is necessary to state the relevant facts. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed instant petition with the following prayers:-- (a) To direct the respondents that the procedure given by the law be adopted which they have not adopted till this date. (b) To direct the respondents to give opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as provided under the law which the respondent No.5 has refused, to hear personally to the petitioner. (c) That the adoption of the procedure the Show Cause issued by the respondent No.5 and its operation be suspended in the larger interest of justice and provided the law.

2. The matter was fixed for hearing in Court on 9-7-2012. Notices were directed to be issued for 30-7-2012. However, on 10-7-2012 counsel for petitioner moved urgent application upon which notices were directed to be issued to the respondents for 13-7-2012 and when the matter was taken up in Court on the said date, following order was passed in the presence of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.A.-G.:-- 13-7-2012 Mr. Nasir Ahmed Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Saifullah A.A.-G. Petitioner, who is serving as Sub-Inspector in Sindh Reserve Police (SRP) for the last twenty-five years, seeks direction through instant petition that respondents be directed to adopt proper procedure and he may be given opportunity of personal hearing as provided under the law. Hence, respondents are to provide opportunity of personal hearing, adopt legal and lawful procedure, pass appropriate order in accordance with law and no order be passed without hearing the petitioner in person. On above direction, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the present petition, which is dismissed accordingly along with listed application."

3. Thereafter, on 18-7-2012 the petitioner has filed listed application under sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, wherein it has been alleged that directions of this Court as contained in its order dated 13-7-2012 have not been complied with.

4. Notices were issued to alleged contemnor, pursuant to which parawise comments have been filed on behalf of the contemnor Nos.2/respondent No.5 wherein all the adverse allegations have been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands by concealing facts, whereas order of dismissal, after having provided complete opportunity of being heard and by adopting legal procedure, was already passed on 2-7-2012. Counsel for the petitioner has denied such assertion and has stated that petitioner was never communicated with the order of dismissal and has been served with such order on 16-7-2012.

5. From perusal of the record it appears that admittedly the petition was presented on 3-7-2012. Thereafter, it was taken up in Court on 9-7-2012, notices were directed to be issued and in the presence of learned counsel for petitioner the matter was adjourned to 30-7-2012. However, for the reason best known to the petitioner, urgent application was moved on 10-7-2012 and on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner it was adjourned to 13-7-2012. However, on 13-7-2012, when the matter was taken up for hearing, admittedly, no comments were filed on behalf of contemnors/respondents whereas no one was in attendance on their behalf as apparently, notices could not be served upon respondents. Counsel for petitioner chose not to proceed with the matter on merits and sought disposal of the petition by seeking direction as contained in order dated 13-7-2012.

6. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in the absence of any counter-affidavit to the contents of petition by the respondents, and looking at the disposal of petition at the request of learned counsel for petitioner at an initial stage, we are not inclined to examine such disputed averments made by the petitioner and the respondents at this stage.

7. We do not find any merits in the instant application which is accordingly dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to seek redressal of his grievance against the dismissal order before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. MH/R-23/K Petition dismissed.