2002 PLP 939 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IRFAN ELAHI, others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 939 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IRFAN ELAHI, others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 939 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 939 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 939 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IRFAN ELAHI, others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- N.A Butt for Petitioner.
- 3. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate‑General, submits that the petition has no merits as the offices of the Deputy Commissioners, were abolished in view of promulgation of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.3 & 5‑‑‑Contempt of Court‑‑ Jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑High Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction had directed Deputy Commissioner to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law on application of the petitioner pending before him within one month‑‑‑Deputy Commissioner having failed to pass order according to directions of the High Court, petitioner felt aggrieved and filed criminal original/contempt petition before High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Deputy Commissioner could not pass order according to direction of High Court as during relevant period offices of Deputy Commissioner were abolished in view of the promulgation of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001‑‑‑High Court had ample jurisdiction to look into subsequent events at time of deciding cases‑‑‑Since office of Deputy Commissioner had been abolished, petition had become infructuous‑‑‑Even other wise contempt was always between contemner and the Court‑‑‑High Court declined to issue notice to the respondent. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Add. A.‑G. for the Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Add. A.‑G. for the Respondents. Brief facts out of which present criminal original arises are that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 15442 of 2000 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 3‑8‑2000. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law on the application of the petitioner pending before him within one month, from the receipt of order of this Court. The Deputy Commissioner concerned failed to pass any order within prescribed period. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this criminal original.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner requested for an adjournment to seek fresh instructions from the petitioner but subsequently he agreed to argue the case. He submits that respondent No.3 filed reply of the petition which reveals that the respondent committed contempt of this Court. In further submits that direction of this Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Article 201 of the Constitution.
3. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate‑General, submits that the petition has no merits as the offices of the Deputy Commissioners, were abolished in view of promulgation of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
5. 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 principle laid down by the Division Bench of High Court in case" Nasir Jamal v. Zubeida Begum" (1990 CLC 1069) Since the office of Deputy Commissioner has been abolished in view of promulgation of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, therefore, the petition has become infructuous. Even otherwise, it is settled principle of law that contempt is always between the contemner and Court. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to issue notice to the respondent. In view of what has been discussed above, this criminal original has no merits and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1329/L Contempt petition dismissed.