2009 PLP 1848 (YLR)
BANDESH ALI — Petitioner Versus MUMTAZ ALI ABRO, MANAGER, A.D.B.P., KHAIRPUR NATHAN SHAH,
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1848 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sarmad Jalal Osmany and S. Ali Aslam Jafferi, JJ |
| Parties | BANDESH ALI — Petitioner Versus MUMTAZ ALI ABRO, MANAGER, A.D.B.P., KHAIRPUR NATHAN SHAH, |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1848 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1848 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sarmad Jalal Osmany and S. Ali Aslam Jafferi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1848 (YLR) (BANDESH ALI — Petitioner Versus MUMTAZ ALI ABRO, MANAGER, A.D.B.P., KHAIRPUR NATHAN SHAH,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Habibullah G. Ghori for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.199
Constitutional petition
Factual controversy had been raised in the petition, which was whether any amount of money was forcibly taken from the petitioner by the respondent
Said controversy could not be addressed in constitutional petition
Petition was disposed of with observations that the petitioner could take recourse to other legal remedies including both civil and criminal
Police Authorities were directed to proceed against the respondent only if a cognizable offence was made, out and the petitioner approached them in that regard. Muhammad Bachal Tunio, learned Addl. A.G. is present. Respondent No.1 is present. Khadim Hussain Shaikh, learned counsel filed power on behalf of Respondent No.1 which is taken on record.
Judgment & Decree
SARMAD JALAL OSAMANY, J.
Comments have been filed on behalf of respondent Mumtaz Ali in which he has totally denied the allegations levelled against him in the petition vis-a-vis harassment of the petitioner at his hands and also he has snatched Rs. 30,000 from the latter. It has been further submitted in the comments that the petitioner had borrowed sums amount from the ADBP a long time ago and said amount was returned in the year, 2000 hence the petitioner's account with ADBP was closed thereafter and now nothing is outstanding from him. Hence the petition has been filed against respondent No.1 with mala fide intent just in order to pressurize and blackmail the respondent No.1.
2. Mr. Habibullah G. Ghori, appearing on behalf of the petitioner says that in the circumstances the petition may be disposed of by directing the petitioner to avail all his remedies regarding the snatching of an amount of Rs. 10,000 from him by the respondent No.1 and also with observation that the petitioner would not be harassed by the respondent No.1. To this submission Mr. Khadim Hussain Shaikh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 has no objection. However he says that the police authorities should only proceed against respondent No.1 if any cognizable offence is made out.
3. We have heard both the learned counsel. In our opinion factual controversy has been raised in this petition viz whether any amount of money was forcibly taken from the petitioner by the respondent No.1 which cannot be addressed in this petition. Hence we would dispose it of by observing that the petitioner may recourse to other legal remedies concluding both civil and criminal. However the police authorities are directed to proceed against the respondent No.1 only if a cognizable offence is made out, if the petitioner approaches them in this regard. Order accordingly. H.B.T./B-17/K Order accordingly.