2006 PLP 1765 (YLR)
SHIMLA — Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION CANTT., TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SARGODHA
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1765 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Hamid Ali Shah, J |
| Parties | SHIMLA — Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION CANTT., TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SARGODHA |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1765 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1765 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Hamid Ali Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1765 (YLR) (SHIMLA — Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION CANTT., TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SARGODHA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Art. 199---Habeas corpus petition---Report of Bailiff had revealed that alleged detenus were sitting on their cots, in the residential quarters without any restraint---Respondent stated that object of filing habeas corpus petition was mala fide and alleged that alleged detenus and petitioner had received huge amount as advance payment of labour and petitioner had moved petition so that they should wriggle out of their liabilities and escape from job for which their services were hired against advance payment---Petitioner was alleged to be habitual in filing constitutional petitions and had already filed constitutional petitions against brick-kiln owners in the same vicinity---Validity---Respondents had the remedy and right to initiate a legal action against petitioner and alleged detenus, which right was available to them for recovery of amount paid by them as advance---No restraint existed on respondents, if they chose to take any action against alleged detenus---Detenus present in the Court had stated that they did not want to render their services any more for respondents---Detenus were set free and allowed to move according to their wishes.
- A.G. Mian for Petitioner.
- Najeeb Faisal Chaudhry, Addl. A.-G., Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl for Respondent No.5.
Headnotes / Summary
Khadim Hussain Bailiff.
Judgment & Decree
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--The alleged detenus have been brought and are present in this Court. Report of the Bailiff reveals that they were sitting on their cots, in the residential quarters without any restraint.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 states that the object of filing this petition is mala fide. Adds that the alleged detenus and petitioner, have received a sum of Rs.1,20,000 (rupees one lac twenty thousand only) as advance payment of labour. The petitioner has moved this petition, so that they should wriggle out of their liabilities and escape from the job for which their services were hired against advance payment. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that the petitioner is habitual in filing writ petitions and he has already filed writ petitions against Abdur Razzaq, Sheikh Anwar and Jalal Din, the brick-kiln owners, in the same vicinity.
3. Be that as it may, the respondents have the right to initiate a legal action, which is available to them for the recovery of the amount paid by the respondents as advance. There is no restraint on the respondents, if they choose any action against the alleged detenues.
4. The detenus are present in the Court and state that they do not want to render their services any more for the respondents. They are set free and allowed to move according to their wishes.
5. With the above observations, the instant habeas petition is disposed of. H.B.T./S-448/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.