Find a Lawyer

WAHID BUX versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH

Article 13, 7, 10 and 17 of the Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), Sections 6 and 7 of Pakistan (1973), Arts 199 and 204 before the High Court's affirmative complaint regarding the harassment of the abolition proceedings on the constitutional petition to give. Catching the bird by the respondent (Inspector, Wildlife Department) that the petiweller was not a 4sense holder. And that upon arrival, the Department refused to issue a license because the applicant was rearing a foreign-born bird that was not under license, respondent verbally denied such allegations before the court, but later In the comments I filed, he described catching parrots and filing a lawsuit against the applicant. The appropriate respondents, in contradicting their earlier oral statement and using their official position to suppress the hypothetical case, had interfered with the duties of the court, creating a false case of history, which violated sections 6 and 7 of the contempt of court Act. Was convicted under contempt of court. In 1976 with Article 204 of the Deputy Conservator of the Department, it was stated that no wild parrot or Australian parrot had ever been caught. No exotic birds or parrots were found in the Wildlife of Pakistan for sale / sale, no permission or license required. And there is no restriction on dealing with Australian pet birds. Respondents, in these circumstances, abused their public position and filed a false case. The High Court accepted the respondents' unconditional apology, asking them to be careful in the future. Warned, Applicant ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation, application advocate for immigration from Miran Shah lawyer