2004 PLP 2131 (YLR)
HUNDAL DASS‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT NAZIM and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 2131 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saiyed Saeed Ashhdd, C.J. and S. Ali Aslam Jafri, J |
| Parties | HUNDAL DASS‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT NAZIM and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 2131 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 2131 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saiyed Saeed Ashhdd, C.J. and S. Ali Aslam Jafri, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 2131 (YLR) (HUNDAL DASS‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT NAZIM and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mehmood Ahmed Khan for Petitioner.
- Manzoor Ahmed for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
- Anwer Mansoor Khan Advocate -General, Sindh for Respondents Nos.3 and 5.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art.l99‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Maintainability‑‑‑Case of petitioner was that his goods were illegally taken away by staff of Municipal Corporation, which he had been able to recover from them‑--Constitution petition had been filed by petitioner on the apprehension that in future same action would be repeated by the Municipal Corporation or by the Authority having replaced it and that a direction be issued to them not to act contrary to law in causing harassment to petitioner‑‑‑Petition filed by petitioner was frivolous and without any substance as no direction could be issued on mere apprehension and fear of petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C.J.‑‑ In this Constitutional petition, the following reliefs have been sought:‑‑ (1) To direct the respondents to act only in accordance with law and rules, applicable on them. (2) To declare that if the petitioner carries on his business within and inside the gates of his premises the respondents have no legal authority to act against him and they cannot act with the authority available to them to take away and confiscate his goods found or present inside the gates on the pretext of carrying on business of a goods carrier only. (3) To direct the respondent No.2 to apply his mind to the each case brought in front of him and to order for return of amount wrongly taken by the respondents. (4) To direct the respondents to refrain themselves from hindering the business of the petitioner if he conducts his business without hindrance to anyone." It is the case of the petitioner that his goods were illegally taken away by the staff of the K.M.C. which he has been able to recover from them. This Constitutional petition has been filed on the apprehension and fear that in future the same thing will be done by the K.M.C. or by the authority having replaced it and that a direction should be issued to them not to act contrary to and against the law in, causing harassment to the petitioner. The petition is absolutely frivolous and without any substance as no direction can be issued on mere apprehension and tear of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed in limine alongwith the listed application. H.B.T./H‑11/K Petition dismissed.