2017 PLP 196 (YLRN)
NIGHAT ANJUM — Petitioner Versus Malik NAEEM and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 196 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | Abdul Sattar, J |
| Parties | NIGHAT ANJUM — Petitioner Versus Malik NAEEM and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Contempt of Court Ordinance (V of 2003) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 196 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Contempt of Court Ordinance (V of 2003) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 196 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: Abdul Sattar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 196 (YLRN) (NIGHAT ANJUM — Petitioner Versus Malik NAEEM and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.3 & 4
Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 & 204
Petitioner sought initiation of contempt proceedings against Bank and Bank Manager for non-compliance of directions of High Court in Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner
Grievance of the petitioner related to a scheme introduced by the Provincial Government which was no more operational and the role of the Bank was secondary to said scheme and subservient to the policy of the Provincial Government, and furthermore the petitioner was unable to come up with exact information about the whereabouts of the alleged contemnor
High Court observed that in such circumstances, proceedings for contempt of court could not proceed further and were disposed of accordingly. [Para. 2 of the judgment] Abdul Sami Chaudhry on behalf of Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SATTAR, J.
Petitioner Nighat Anjum filed a Writ Petition No.11537/2015 on a plea that she was entitled to get Suzuki Bolan instead of Suzuki Ravi under Apna Rozgar Scheme, introduced by the Punjab Government, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 7.8.2015 with a direction to respondent No.3/Manager, Bank of Punjab, Gulgasht Colony Branch, Multan, to treat the grievance of the petitioner as representation and decide it in accordance with law within ten days through a speaking order. The said respondent allegedly did not comply with the said direction. Thus the petitioner lady filed this criminal original for taking contempt proceedings against respondent No.3/Manager, Bank of Punjab Gulgasht Branch, Multan, who appeared before this Court and filed his written reply on the last date to the effect that he never remained posted as Manager, Bank of Punjab Gulgasht Branch, Multan during the period, when the writ petition was filed and furthermore Apna Rozgar Scheme, introduced by the Government of Punjab, stood abolished since long and moreover the relevant bank Manager of concerned branch has also resigned from bank service.
2. During arguments on this criminal original, when the learned counsel for the petitioner has been required to clarify about the stance adopted by respondent No.3 in his written reply that concerned Bank Manager, Bank of Punjab Gulgasht Branch, Multan is no more in bank service and furthermore Apna Rozgar Scheme, introduced by Government of Punjab, is not alive, the learned counsel for the petitioner in response has expressed ignorance about the said two situations. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per paragraph No.2 of the decided writ petition, the responsibility of the Bank of Punjab was to the extent of providing of finance, while Apna Rozgar Scheme was introduced by the Government of the Punjab. In view of the above created situation regarding grievance of the petitioner, since Apna Rozgar Scheme, introduced by the Government of Punjab, is no more operational and the role of Bank of Punjab being secondary and subservient to the policy of the Government and lastly the petitioner being unable to come up with the exact information about the whereabouts of alleged contemner, the petition in hand cannot proceed further , which is disposed of accordingly. KMZ/N-11/L Order accordingly.