2025 PLP 279 (PTD)
BENISH MEHBOOB Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others
| Citation | 2025 PLP 279 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar and Agha Faisal, JJ |
| Parties | BENISH MEHBOOB Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 279 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP 279 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar and Agha Faisal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 279 (PTD) (BENISH MEHBOOB Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Art.199---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.2(s)---Constitution petition---Locus standi of petitioner---Person approaching High Court, as petitioner, not a party to previous proceedings---Effect---Customs Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') passed an order (setting aside outrightly the confiscation of a smuggled vehicle) accepting version of the appellant before the Tribunal---Petition before the High Court was filed, for implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal, notwithstanding the apparent fact that the petitioner was not the appellant (before the Tribunal) and had no actionable nexus therewith, instead (the petition had been filed) by a lady advocate claiming herself as an attorney of the appellant before the Tribunal---Validity--- High Court observed that the appellant before the Tribunal (namely Adam Khan) was someone else other than the present petitioner and prima facie the only place the petitioner found mention in the Tribunal Order was in the title ostensibly as the attorney of the appellant before the Tribunal---Other documents (like Detention Receipt) releted to the appellant before the Tribunal---Index of the present petition showed the name of appellant before the Tribunal (Adam Khan) to be the petitioner, however, the typed name (Adam Khan) had been crossed out in ink and the name of the petitioner was hand written instead while the affidavits supporting the memorandum of petition and other CMAs had Adam Khan in the title and the same had been sworn by the petitioner, representing herself to be the attorney of the petitioner---Regarding said contradictions / discrepancies / corrections, on confrontation, lady advocate present before the High Court, claiming herself to be attorney of the appellant before the Tribunal, had failed to provide any explanation, whereas she had represented herself to be a practicing advocate of the High Court---Same did not confer any license upon her to act in a manner not befitting to an Officer of the Court---While conscious mischief was reasonably apprehended in the present matter, however, out of compassion the High Court confined findings to the case itself and directed no further proceedings with respect to the petitioner herself---Petitioner before the High Court had failed to demonstrate any locus standi to maintain the present petition---Constitutional petition, along with pending applications, was hereby dismissed in limine, in circumstances.
- 3&4. Petitioner who claims to be an Advocate of this court has filed this petition claiming to an attorney of the petitioner and on perusal of the memo of petition and supporting affidavits it appears that initially the petition was filed by one Adam Khan and corrections have been made with ink on the first page of the petition, whereas, the next page has been changed by way of insertion of a photocopy of ledger paper. It further appears that insofar as the affidavit at page 29 of the petition is concerned, it still shows the name of the Petitioner as "Adam Khan". While confronted, it is stated by the attorney that she is not the attorney; but a petitioner herself. This claim is not supported by the record available before us. She is directed to come prepared on the next date to satisfy as to how an advocate can become attorney of a petitioner.
- 4. The petitioner has represented herself to be a practicing advocate of this Court, however, the same does not confer any license upon the petitioner to act in a manner not befitting an officer of the Court. While conscious mischief is reasonably apprehended in this matter, however, out of compassion we do hereby confine our findings to the case itself and direct no further proceedings with respect to the petitioner herself.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.199
Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.2(s)
Constitution petition
Person approaching High Court, as petitioner, not a party to previous proceedings
Effect
Customs Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') passed an order (setting aside outrightly the confiscation of a smuggled vehicle) accepting version of the appellant before the Tribunal
Petition before the High Court was filed, for implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal, notwithstanding the apparent fact that the petitioner was not the appellant (before the Tribunal) and had no actionable nexus therewith, instead (the petition had been filed) by a lady advocate claiming herself as an attorney of the appellant before the Tribunal
High Court observed that the appellant before the Tribunal (namely Adam Khan) was someone else other than the present petitioner and prima facie the only place the petitioner found mention in the Tribunal Order was in the title ostensibly as the attorney of the appellant before the Tribunal
Other documents (like Detention Receipt) releted to the appellant before the Tribunal
Index of the present petition showed the name of appellant before the Tribunal (Adam Khan) to be the petitioner, however, the typed name (Adam Khan) had been crossed out in ink and the name of the petitioner was hand written instead while the affidavits supporting the memorandum of petition and other CMAs had Adam Khan in the title and the same had been sworn by the petitioner, representing herself to be the attorney of the petitioner
Regarding said contradictions / discrepancies / corrections, on confrontation, lady advocate present before the High Court, claiming herself to be attorney of the appellant before the Tribunal, had failed to provide any explanation, whereas she had represented herself to be a practicing advocate of the High Court
Same did not confer any license upon her to act in a manner not befitting to an Officer of the Court
While conscious mischief was reasonably apprehended in the present matter, however, out of compassion the High Court confined findings to the case itself and directed no further proceedings with respect to the petitioner herself
Petitioner before the High Court had failed to demonstrate any locus standi to maintain the present petition
Constitutional petition, along with pending applications, was hereby dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
AGHA FAISAL, J.
This petitioner seeks implementation of an order, setting aside an order of outright confiscation of a smuggled vehicle, of the Customs Appellate Tribunal Bench I at Karachi dated 03.03.3022 ("Tribunal Order") in Custom Appeal K-7583 of 2021 ("Appeal"), notwithstanding the apparent fact that the petitioner was not the appellant in the Appeal and has no actionable nexus therewith. On the first date of hearing the following order was passed: "06.02.2023 Petitioner, Beenish Mehboob, is present in person.
1. Urgency granted.
2. Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions. 3&
4. Petitioner who claims to be an Advocate of this court has filed this petition claiming to an attorney of the petitioner and on perusal of the memo of petition and supporting affidavits it appears that initially the petition was filed by one Adam Khan and corrections have been made with ink on the first page of the petition, whereas, the next page has been changed by way of insertion of a photocopy of ledger paper. It further appears that insofar as the affidavit at page 29 of the petition is concerned, it still shows the name of the Petitioner as "Adam Khan". While confronted, it is stated by the attorney that she is not the attorney; but a petitioner herself. This claim is not supported by the record available before us. She is directed to come prepared on the next date to satisfy as to how an advocate can become attorney of a petitioner. Office shall also explain its position as to how and in what manner, the petition has been entertained and corrections have been permitted in as above. The concerned official shall be in attendance before the Court on the next date of hearing to explain this position. To come up on 28.02.2023."
2. Today, the petitioner appeared in person and abjured addressing the Court, as directed earlier, and on the contrary insisted that she may be allowed to withdraw the petition with permission to file afresh. Needless to state that such a request was misconceived, hence, denied.
3. Our observations with regard to this petition and the correlated conduct of the petitioner are as follows: a. The appellant before the Tribunal was Adam Khan and prima facie the only place the petitioner finds mention in the Tribunal Order is in the title ostensibly as the attorney of the appellant Adam Khan. b. There is a Detention receipt dated 10.04.2021 available on file and the same is also issued in the name of Adam Khan. c. A copy of a certificate of registration is placed on file, however, it does not refer to either Adam Khan or the petitioner as the owner. The name appearing thereat is Riaz Ahmed. d. No other document has been placed on file, however, paragraph 4 of the Tribunal Order records that the Appeal was filed by Adam Khan and it was he who claimed ownership of the vehicle. e. The index of the present petition shows Adam Khan to be the petitioner, however, the typed name has been crossed out in ink and the name of the petitioner hand written instead. The affidavit supporting the memorandum of petition has Adam Khan in the title and the same has been sworn by the petitioner, representing herself to be the attorney of the petitioner. f. Three applications, being C.M.A. 3301 of 2023, C.M.A. 3302 of 2023 and C.M.A. 3303 of 2023, also show Adam Khan to be the petitioner, however, the typed name has been crossed out in ink and the name of the petitioner hand written instead. The respective corresponding affidavits supporting the applications have Adam Khan in the title, however, the all three affidavits have been sworn by the petitioner representing herself to be the attorney of the petitioner. g. Despite having been confronted and provided an opportunity to provide an explanation, the petitioner has failed to do so.
4. The petitioner has represented herself to be a practicing advocate of this Court, however, the same does not confer any license upon the petitioner to act in a manner not befitting an officer of the Court. While conscious mischief is reasonably apprehended in this matter, however, out of compassion we do hereby confine our findings to the case itself and direct no further proceedings with respect to the petitioner herself.
5. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any locus standi to maintain the present petition and even otherwise no bona fides are apparent from the record / conduct before us, therefore, this petition, along with pending applications, is hereby dismissed in limine.
6. The order dated 06.02.2023 also directed the office to explain its position in this matter. The reply has been filed by Israr Ahmed (Senior Office Associate - Additional Registrar Writ). The reply appears to be unsatisfactory, therefore, Office is directed to prepare a separate file, containing a copy of the order herein dated 06.02.2023 and the aforesaid reply and place the same before us for further proceedings. MQ/B-7/Sindh Petition dismissed.