2002 SCMR 914 (PLP)
Sindh, Karachi‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. TAJI BIBI ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 2002 SCMR 914 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and |
| Parties | Sindh, Karachi‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. TAJI BIBI ‑‑‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 SCMR 914 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 SCMR 914 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 SCMR 914 (PLP) (Sindh, Karachi‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. TAJI BIBI ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Suleman Habibullah, Additional Advocate‑General, Sindh and Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 19th June, 2001.
- STATE through Advocate‑General,
- ‑‑‑‑S.3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.10, 199 & 185(3)‑‑ Constitutional petition before High Court‑‑‑Preventive detention‑‑‑High Court vide order dated 8‑8‑2000 found the detention of detenue as without lawful authority and in flagrant violation of mandatory requirements of S.3 of Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 and Art.10 of the Constitution, and allowed the detenue compensation a Rs.5,000 per day for a period of 32 days‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal filed before Supreme Court against order dated 8‑8‑2000 was withdrawn by the State‑‑‑Advocate‑General made a request to High Court to defer further proceedings in the case till expiry of period of limitation as the Government had decided to file petition before Supreme Court against order dated 2‑4‑2001 (another interim order of High Court)‑‑‑High Court rejected the request and directed Home Secretary to appear in Court on next date for explain the position and show as to why further action should not be taken‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑High Court after going through record had rightly found that detenue had been arrested without lawful authority, thus, had directed the concerned officer to pay compensation‑‑‑Same matter agitated earlier before Supreme Court had been disposed of as not pressed by Law Officer‑‑‑High Court had rightly rejected the signed statement of Advocate‑General‑‑‑Impugned order was based on sound and cogent reasons within the principles laid down by Supreme Court, which was not open to exception‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused to grant leave to appeal.
- 2. Mr. Raja Qureshi, Advocate‑General, Sindh made a statement before the Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, to the effect that the petitioner/Government decided to file civil petition for Leave to Appeal in this Court challenging the order of the High Court, dated 2‑4‑2001, with a request that further proceedings may be deferred till the expiry of the period of limitation. The learned High Court rejected the aforesaid statement of the learned Advocate‑General and directed that the Home Secretary or an Additional Secretary to appear in Court on 28‑5‑2001 to explain the position and show why further action should not be taken.
- 3. We have heard Mr. Suleman Habibullah, Additional Advocate- General, Sindh, who, inter alia, contended that the impugned order is not sustainable, as the penalty/compensation of Rs.5,000 per day for the detention of the detenue imposed by the learned High Court is against the law. Admittedly, the order dated 8‑8‑2000 was agitated before this Court through Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 4786‑K of 2000, which was disposed of vide order dated 11‑12‑2000, as not pressed. During the hearing of the petition it was found by the High Court that the detenue was kept in custody without lawful order end the order of detention under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, was found to be in flagrant violation of the mandatory requirements of section 3 of the said Ordinance and Article 10 of the Constitution, and the detenue was allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000 per day for a period of 32 days.
- 4. The High Court after going through the record rightly held that the detenue was arrested without lawful authority, therefore, the concerned officers were directed to pay compensation. The matter was also agitated before this Court but the learned officer finding himself on weak vicket did not press the criminal petition, which was disposed of accordingly. The signed statement of the learned Advocate‑General, Sindh, was rightly
- 5. We have considered the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate‑General and perused the material placed on the record. The impugned order is based on sound and cogent reasons within the principle settled by this Court and is not open to exception. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed on merits and leave is refused.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 16‑5‑2001, of the High Court, of Sindh, Karachi, passed in C.P. No. 1096/2000). ‑‑‑‑S.3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.10, 199 & 185(3)‑‑ Constitutional petition before High Court‑‑‑Preventive detention‑‑‑High Court vide order dated 8‑8‑2000 found the detention of detenue as without lawful authority and in flagrant violation of mandatory requirements of S.3 of Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 and Art.10 of the Constitution, and allowed the detenue compensation a Rs.5,000 per day for a period of 32 days‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal filed before Supreme Court against order dated 8‑8‑2000 was withdrawn by the State‑‑‑Advocate‑General made a request to High Court to defer further proceedings in the case till expiry of period of limitation as the Government had decided to file petition before Supreme Court against order dated 2‑4‑2001 (another interim order of High Court)‑‑‑High Court rejected the request and directed Home Secretary to appear in Court on next date for explain the position and show as to why further action should not be taken‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑High Court after going through record had rightly found that detenue had been arrested without lawful authority, thus, had directed the concerned officer to pay compensation‑‑‑Same matter agitated earlier before Supreme Court had been disposed of as not pressed by Law Officer‑‑‑High Court had rightly rejected the signed statement of Advocate‑General‑‑‑Impugned order was based on sound and cogent reasons within the principles laid down by Supreme Court, which was not open to exception‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused to grant leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.‑‑‑--The petitioner‑seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 16‑5‑2001, passed in C. P. No. 1096 of 2000.
2. Mr. Raja Qureshi, Advocate‑General, Sindh made a statement before the Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, to the effect that the petitioner/Government decided to file civil petition for Leave to Appeal in this Court challenging the order of the High Court, dated 2‑4‑2001, with a request that further proceedings may be deferred till the expiry of the period of limitation. The learned High Court rejected the aforesaid statement of the learned Advocate‑General and directed that the Home Secretary or an Additional Secretary to appear in Court on 28‑5‑2001 to explain the position and show why further action should not be taken.
3. We have heard Mr. Suleman Habibullah, Additional Advocate- General, Sindh, who, inter alia, contended that the impugned order is not sustainable, as the penalty/compensation of Rs.5,000 per day for the detention of the detenue imposed by the learned High Court is against the law. Admittedly, the order dated 8‑8‑2000 was agitated before this Court through Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 4786‑K of 2000, which was disposed of vide order dated 11‑12‑2000, as not pressed. During the hearing of the petition it was found by the High Court that the detenue was kept in custody without lawful order end the order of detention under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, was found to be in flagrant violation of the mandatory requirements of section 3 of the said Ordinance and Article 10 of the Constitution, and the detenue was allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000 per day for a period of 32 days.
4. The High Court after going through the record rightly held that the detenue was arrested without lawful authority, therefore, the concerned officers were directed to pay compensation. The matter was also agitated before this Court but the learned officer finding himself on weak vicket did not press the criminal petition, which was disposed of accordingly. The signed statement of the learned Advocate‑General, Sindh, was rightly rejected by the learned High Court.
5. We have considered the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate‑General and perused the material placed on the record. The impugned order is based on sound and cogent reasons within the principle settled by this Court and is not open to exception. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed on merits and leave is refused. S.A.K./S‑166/S Leave refused