1980 PLP 801 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑Leave to appeal has been sought from the order dated 8‑8‑78 of the High Court of Baluchistan, whereby a contempt application was dismissed. The petitioner had filed a Constitutional Petition in the High Court. It related to a service matter. On 31‑3‑72 the respondents therein were allowed 15 days time to file written statement. It was however submitted long after 15 days. Moreover according to the petitioner it contained false denials of certain facts asserted by him in the writ petition. He, therefore, thinking that it amounted to contempt of Court moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 95 of 1976, in the High Court for contempt proceedings. It was ordered on 29‑4‑76 that the contempt application would be heard with the Writ Petition, which was fixed for hearing on 21‑5‑

76. The writ petition it is stated abated on account of operation of law and the petitioner filed an appeal before the Services Tribunal. The contempt application remained pending even after the order dated 18‑6‑76 regarding the abatement of the Writ Petition. The petitioner moved an application on 17‑4‑78 seeking early hearing of the contempt matter. This application (C. M. 1012 of 1978) was fixed for hearing on various dates. It was also dismissed in default once but on another application was restored on 27‑7‑

78. After further postponement it was (on the request of the petitioner for early disposal made on 2‑8‑78) ordered by a Division Bench of the High Court, to be heard on 8‑8‑

78. On this date instead of simply directing the early hearing of the contempt application on a future date the learned Judges heard and dismissed the said application itself holding that the conduct complained of did not amount to contempt. It is this order, which has been brought under challenge through this petition. It has been urged by the petitioner that enough time was not allowed to him to prepare the contempt case and in particular he could not render adequate assistance because he had no books with him. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Swaleh and another v. Messrs United Grain & Fodder Agencies (P L D 1964 S C 97), that the impugned order is not a speaking order and it does not disclose application of mind by the learned Judges of the High Court reliance is placed on Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan (P L D 1970 S C 173), and that it has wrongly been held that late filing of writ petition beyond the time allowed by the High Court and making wrong denials therein does not constitute contempt. The contempt application was pending for a long time. It needed expeditious disposal. The petitioner was himself insisting on its early hearing. If the learned Judges decided to hear the main contempt matter instead of the miscellaneous application for its early hearing, there was nothing wrong in it. It would not be correct to say that the petitioner had not enough time to prepare the case. He was the applicant; he should have kept ready in this behalf. There was always a reasonable Possibility of the main application being taken up on any date of the hearing of the application for its early hearing. The petitioner had admitted that he did not seek time either for preparation of the case or for procuring books. The case of Muhammad Swaleh is of no help to the petitioner. There is no force in the first contention raised by him. Perusal of contempt application does not show that the subject‑matter thereof required any detailed treatment. The impugned order does show application of mind to the essential feature of the case. Elaborate discussion of the point involved therein was not necessary. The case of Mollah Ejahar Ali is thus distinguishable. With regard to the last contention, the petitioner explained that he is not keen that any particular person should be convicted for contempt and that his purpose was to assist the Court in the performance of its functions and in that context he desired that the stream of justice should be kept clean and flowing without interruption. With this explanation he contended that the filing of the writ petition beyond time amounted to contempt of Court. We do not agree with him. It was not a mandatory direction. Rather the respondents were permitted to file the written statement within a certain period. If it was delayed the petitioner could, in case of need, urge that it should be kept out of consideration. We agree with the High Court that it did not amount to contempt. We are also of the view that incorrect denial of certain facts in a written statement would not always constitution contempt and there is nothing in the contempt application filed by the petitioner to show that there was any intention to commit contempt of the High Court (even if it be assumed that what the petitioner had stated was correct). The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. There is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.