1992 P Cr (PLP)

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer:-- (1) To call upon the respondent No.1 to show his authority to hold the office and continue as the Member of Provincial Assembly and so the Chief Minister Sindh or such other order or direction restraining the respondent No.1 from holding and exercising the privileges in respect of the office. (2) It is also submitted that by an appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondent No.3 to call upon to take the notice of the confessional statement of the respondent No.1 as taken by the respondent No.2 of the commission of drinking an offence liable to punishment under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 of 1979 to the effect that it is in non-conformity of the principles of good moral or virtuous conduct as expected from the Chief Executive of the Province, Member of the Provincial Assembly and Chief Minister Sindh and the respondent No.1 has acted in a manner prejudicial to the morality which disqualify him from being a member of the Provincial Assembly Sindh and refer the question to the Chief Election Commissioner. (3) It is further submitted that in the interest of justice pending the decision of the petition the respondent No.1 be restrained by an injunction from performing the function and exercising the privileges in respect of the said office. (4) Any other relief or reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper under the prevailing circumstances of the case." This prayer is sought on the basis of news item which had published a statement of the Chief Minister of Sindh the respondent No.1 which is Annexure `A' to the petition. It is a report of Daily Mashriq Evening Special dated 5-1-1991 in which it has been stated that in a private complaint filed in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore against respondent No.1 under the Hudood Ordinance, statement of Wajihullah Khan, the complainant, was recorded and the proceedings were adjourned for 14 days. The complainant had produced list of five witnesses. The complainant had made a statement in Court that respondent No.1 in his statement published in various newspapers, stated that he drinks which is an offence under the Laws of Pakistan. He had prayed that respondent No.1 should be punished according to law. The complainant also stated that he is General Secretary of the Lahore Bar Association and the police has not registered his report. A press report of Daily Dawn, dated 2-1-1991 has also been annexed with the petition in which it has been reported that respondent No.1 affirmed that he stood by his statement that he drinks liquor and is not afraid of anybody except Almighty Allah. It has been further reported that he has stated that he is taking liquor on the advice of doctors which has been prescribed by both foreign and Pakistani doctors in London. The petitioner has referred to Articles 63 and 113 of the Constitution. The Advocate-General has contended that these are disputed questions of facts and further that Article 113 read with Article 63(2) provides an effective remedy within the Assembly which can be availed by the members of the Assembly and therefore, the petition is incompetent at this stage. From the facts stated it is clear that for the purposes of obtaining the relief the petitioner has relied on the complaint filed before the Court at Lahore. The petitioner was not able to state whether the complaint is still pending and proceedings are continuing there or not. Furthermore, the respondent No.1 seems to have taken the plea that whatever he is doing is under the medical advice. These are questions which have to be investigated as a question of fact and then proper law applicable has to be applied. In these circumstances as on the same subject-matter the complaint is already pending and further that disputed questions of fact are involved, we dismiss the petition in limine. AA./H-301/K Petition dismissed.