PLC(CS) 2025

2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUMTAZ ALI ANSARI Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Local Government Department, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 10 others

Jurisdiction / Court
Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)
Decided Date
Constitution Petition No.D-940 of 2024, decided on 8th April, 2025.
Honorable Judges
Zulfiqar Ali Sangi and Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)
Bench Members Zulfiqar Ali Sangi and Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, JJ
Parties MUMTAZ ALI ANSARI Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Local Government Department, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 10 others
Primary Law (a) Constitution of Pakistan, (b) Constitution of Pakistan
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, (b) Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench) bench comprising: Zulfiqar Ali Sangi and Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUMTAZ ALI ANSARI Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Local Government Department, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 10 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (b) Constitution of Pakistan

Representation

  • Jawad Hussain Rajper associated of Syed Jaffar Ali Shah for Petitioner.
  • Muhammad Yasin Khaskheli for Respondents Nos.3 and 4.
  • Shahid Hussain Jogi for Respondents Nos.2 and 5.
  • ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Concealment of facts---Judicial process, misuse of---Effect---Petitioner asserting himself as a regular and confirmed employee of the respondents ( concerned Town Committee, Local Government) filed Constitutional petition seeking the release of outstanding salaries---Validity---Record revealed that many facts were consciously suppressed by the petitioner including an FIR that had already been lodged against the Petitioner in connection with the theft from the public library---Such deliberate concealment was reprehensible and constituted a grave abuse of the judicial process---It was equally alarming that the counsel appearing for the petitioner in the prior litigation failed to disclose the previous proceedings while the other / present counsel representing the petitioner herein, also withheld these critical facts---Such conduct was entirely unbecoming of an Advocate---Courts rightly repose trust in officers of the court and expect the highest standards of professional candour---Any deviation from such ethical standards warrants serious censure---High Court observed that should such unethical behavior persist in future, the matter will be referred to the Bar Council for disciplinary action---High Court categorically deprecated the petitioner's conduct and the reprehensible attempts to manipulate the judicial process---Thus, present constitutional petition, being tainted by suppression of material facts and devoid of merit, was dismissed with costs.
  • Shahryar Imdad Awan, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.
  • 7. All these damning facts were consciously suppressed by the Petitioner. Such deliberate concealment is reprehensible and constitutes a grave abuse of the judicial process. It is equally alarming that the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in the prior litigation, Mr. Sajjad Hussain Dayo, failed to disclose the previous proceedings. The other counsel, Mr. Jaffer Ali Shah, representing the Petitioner herein, also withheld these critical facts. Such conduct is entirely unbecoming of an Advocate. Courts rightly repose trust in officers of the court and expect the highest standards of professional candour. Any deviation from such ethical standards warrants serious censure. Should such unethical behavior persist in future, the matter will be referred to the Bar Council for disciplinary action.

Headnotes / Summary

Art. 199

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Judicial process, misuse of

Submitting ficticious documentation before the Court

Petitioner asserting himself as a regular and confirmed employee of the respondents (concerned Town Committee, Local Government) filed Constitutional Petition seeking the release of outstanding salaries

Validity

Record reveals that the petitioner had earlier approached High Court seeking identical relief, which Petition was disposed of ; however, rather than abiding by the judicial pronouncement, the petitioner sought to re-agitate the matter by misusing judicial process and submitting fictitious documentation

High Court categorically deprecated the petitioner's conduct and the reprehensible attempts to manipulate the judicial process

Thus, present constitutional petition, being tainted by suppression of material facts and devoid of merit, was dismissed with costs.

Art. 199

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Concealment of facts

Judicial process, misuse of

Effect

Petitioner asserting himself as a regular and confirmed employee of the respondents ( concerned Town Committee, Local Government) filed Constitutional petition seeking the release of outstanding salaries

Validity

Record revealed that many facts were consciously suppressed by the petitioner including an FIR that had already been lodged against the Petitioner in connection with the theft from the public library

Such deliberate concealment was reprehensible and constituted a grave abuse of the judicial process

It was equally alarming that the counsel appearing for the petitioner in the prior litigation failed to disclose the previous proceedings while the other / present counsel representing the petitioner herein, also withheld these critical facts

Such conduct was entirely unbecoming of an Advocate

Courts rightly repose trust in officers of the court and expect the highest standards of professional candour

Any deviation from such ethical standards warrants serious censure

High Court observed that should such unethical behavior persist in future, the matter will be referred to the Bar Council for disciplinary action

High Court categorically deprecated the petitioner's conduct and the reprehensible attempts to manipulate the judicial process

Thus, present constitutional petition, being tainted by suppression of material facts and devoid of merit, was dismissed with costs. Shahryar Imdad Awan, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.

Judgment & Decree

ABDUL HAMID BHURGRI, J.

Through the instant Constitutional Petition, the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- (a) To direct the respondents to release the monthly salary of petitioner that illegally stopped by them. (b) To direct the respondents will no create any kind of harassment to petitioner and his family members of the petitioner. (c) To restrain the respondents from taking any adverse action against the petitioner till final disposal of this petition. (d) To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of case.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner asserts that the Petitioner is a regular and confirmed employee of the Respondents, and yet, his lawful salary has not been disbursed by Respondent No.2. It is further submitted that all salary payments were abruptly suspended, despite the issuance of official directions by the Director, Local Government, to the Chairman Bozdar Wada, and Thari Mirwah, on 15.11.2023. Despite repeated entreaties to the Respondents, no redress was afforded. Hence, this petition seeks the release of outstanding salaries.

3. Conversely, learned counsel for the Respondents vehemently opposed the Petition, submitting that the Petitioner was transferred from the Town Committee Mirwah to Town Committee Bozdar Wada in October 2023, and since then, he has remained absent from duty. Furthermore, it was contended that the Petitioner is allegedly involved in practices of illegal encroachment and land grabbing, having unlawfully occupied premises belonging to the public library situated in Bozdar Wada.

4. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 have filed their para wise comments denied the allegations of the Petitioner for withholding his monthly salaries. It is further stated by the respondents Nos.3 and 4 that previously the Petitioner had filed Constitutional Petition No. D-1298 of 2022 before this Court, seeking identical relief, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.9.2023 with express directions to the Petitioner to vacate the illegal premises. Instead of complying with the orders of this Court, the Petitioner engaged in deliberate misrepresentation by initiating fresh legal proceedings based on fabricated documents and filed Civil Suit No. 168/2023 before the Senior Civil Judge, Mirwah, which was also dismissed. The subsequent Civil Appeal filed by the Petitioner also met the same fate. Thereafter, Civil Revision No.S-268/2023 was filed before this Court and was similarly dismissed vide order dated 4.10.2024, following which illegal possession was removed by the Anti-Encroachment Police. Upon regaining control of the property, it was discovered that several articles belonging to the public library had been stolen. Consequently, FIR No. 43/2024 was registered against the Petitioner at Police Station Bozdar Wada.

5. The preceding order unequivocally establishes that the Petitioner had earlier filed litigation seeking identical relief. The Petition was disposed of. Rather than abiding by the judicial pronouncement, the Petitioner sought to re-agitate the matter by misusing judicial process and submitting fictitious documentation.

6. This Court notes with grave concern that such material misrepresentation was designed to obstruct justice. Indeed, an FIR has already been lodged against the Petitioner in connection with the theft from the public library.

7. All these damning facts were consciously suppressed by the Petitioner. Such deliberate concealment is reprehensible and constitutes a grave abuse of the judicial process. It is equally alarming that the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in the prior litigation, Mr. Sajjad Hussain Dayo, failed to disclose the previous proceedings. The other counsel, Mr. Jaffer Ali Shah, representing the Petitioner herein, also withheld these critical facts. Such conduct is entirely unbecoming of an Advocate. Courts rightly repose trust in officers of the court and expect the highest standards of professional candour. Any deviation from such ethical standards warrants serious censure. Should such unethical behavior persist in future, the matter will be referred to the Bar Council for disciplinary action.

8. This Court categorically deprecates the Petitioner's conduct and the reprehensible attempts to manipulate the judicial process.

9. In light of the foregoing, this Petition, tainted by suppression of material facts and devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Clinic of the High Court by the Petitioner within 15 days. Non-payment of said costs shall render this Petition liable to be fixed for further orders. MQ/M-60/Sindh Petition dismissed.