2005 P Cr (PLP)

I intend to decide the following contempt petitions by one consolidated order having similar facts and law:‑‑ (i) Criminal Original No.1155/W of 2004 and (ii) Criminal Original No. 1156/W of 2004.

2. The brief facts out of which aforesaid contempt petitions arise are that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 13152 of 2004 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 6‑10‑2004 and also filed another Writ Petition No.3784 of 2004 which was also disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17‑3‑2004 with certain direction to the respondent concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner, but the respondent failed to comply with the direction of this Court. The petitioner being aggrieved filed aforesaid contempt petitions.

3. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the concerned respondent malafidely and wilfully did not obey the direction of this Court as the respondent did not decide the representation of the petitioner within parameters prescribed by this Court. He further submits that direction of this Court is binding upon the respondent in view of Article 201 of the Constitution. In support of his contention, he relied upon Muhammad Tariq Qureshi's case PLD 2005 Lah.

292. He further submits that the comments/replies of the respondents are contradictory in nature and this fact is sufficient that the respondents have committed contempt of this Court.

4. The learned Law Officer submits that Senior Member, Board of Revenue has referred the case of the petitioner back to the Departmental Promotion/Selection Committee. The said committee convened the meeting within one month and decided the case of the petitioner. He further submits that the respondents have convened the meeting and considered the case of the petitioner in the meeting held on 12‑7‑2004 and case of the petitioner was deferred due to pending inquiry against him. Against this order, the petitioner has also filed appeal, which is pending adjudication before the Member, Board of Revenue, therefore, the respondents have not committed contempt of this Court.

5. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that the respondents with mala fide intention did not decide the case of the petitioner and proceedings with regard to inquiry, have been dropped as is evident from report of Inquiry Officer dated 10‑12‑2004.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

7. It is admitted fact that this Court has only directed to respondent concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner, who has decided the same and referred the case of the petitioner back to the Departmental Promotion/Selection Committee with the direction to convene the meeting within one month. The meeting was held on 12‑7‑2004 and case of the petitioner was deferred against which the petitioner has also filed an appeal before the M.B.R. which is pending adjudication. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to issue contempt notice to the respondents, even otherwise, it is settled principle of law that the contempt is always between the contemner and the Court. In view of what has been discussed above, these contempt petitions have no merit and the same are dismissed. M.B.A./M‑1031/L Petitions dismissed.