2006 PLP 250 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD WARIS and another — Petitioners Versus CHIEF MINISTER, SINDH and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 250 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD WARIS and another — Petitioners Versus CHIEF MINISTER, SINDH and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Urban State Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance, (III of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 250 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Urban State Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance, (III of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 250 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 250 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD WARIS and another — Petitioners Versus CHIEF MINISTER, SINDH and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Imtiaz Agha for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3
Contempt of Court Ordinance (IV of 2003), Ss.3 & 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 --Constitutional petition--Contempt of Court
Applicants/petitioners in their application for contempt of Court had sought action against alleged contemners for violation of order whereby their constitutional petition was allowed
Authority by its letter, referred the matter to Committee constituted under Sindh Urban State Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance, 2001 and Committee exercising powers under said Ordinance, decided case of petitioners pertaining to plot and allowed petitioner to get it regularized subject to payment of amount mentioned in the decision
After the matter was referred to the Committee, petitioners were represented and heard before decision was taken by Committee
Petitioners had neither challenged action of Authority of referring matter to Committee nor challenged order of Committee before any forum for want of jurisdiction
Alleged contemners did not commit any Contempt of the Court in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
By this application under sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance IV of 2003, the applicant seeks action against the alleged contemnors, mentioned in the. application, for violation of the order, dated 15-11-2002 whereby the petition was allowed. The Court, while allowing the petition, observed that though there was no material before it indicating that the cancellation had taken place under Ordinance III of 2001 but it was open for the Government to take any appropriate action as sanctioned by law. Respondent No.5 was also allowed to take any measures enjoying the sanction of law. The facts appear to be that the cancellation order, dated 12-12-1997, issued by the K.D.A. in respect of Plot No.ST-1 admeasuring 820 sq. yards, situated in Metroville-1 (SITE), which was the subject-matter of this petition was set aside. It further appears that Ordinance III of 2001 was enacted in January, 2001, whereby, amongst others, the allotment of the plot in dispute was once again cancelled. K.D.A. by its letter dated 6-3-2003, referred the matter to the Committee which was constituted under the said Ordinance. The Committee exercising the powers under the said Ordinance, decided the case of the petitioner pertaining to said plot and allowed them to get it regularized subject to his paying the amount mentioned in the decision. The case of the petitioner is that the K.D.A. had no lawful authority to refer the matter to the Committee after the order, dated 15-11-2002 was passed by this Court, as the Ordinance III of 2001 was not applicable to his case. It is noted that after the matter was referred to the Committee, the petitioner was represented there and heard before the decision was taken by the Committee. It is also noted that the petitioner has neither challenged the action of K.D.A. of referring the matter to the Committee nor challenged the order of the Committee before any forum for want of jurisdiction. At present we are dealing with the contempt application and under the given facts and circumstances observed above, we do not find that the alleged contemnors had committed any contempt of the Court. The application is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./M-7/K Application dismissed.