Find a Lawyer

Constitution Petition No. D-1050 of 1979, decided on 29th March, 1984.

---Art. 199--Respondent getting direction against petitioner from Army Major, regarding use of Nali--Neither any Martial Law Regulation under which such direction was passed nor any document, regulation or order, whereby it could be said that such Major was acting as Martial Law Authority, was shown--Direction not yet implemented--Litigation in civil court pending between parties--Counsel for respondent undertaking that if he had to seek any remedy by civil court he will move for necessary action for implementation/execution--In view of such statement, writ petition not pressed.

G.M.Qureshi for Petitioners.

Abdul Sattar Shaikh, Add1.A.-G. and Syed Inayat Ali for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 29th March, 1984.

.-- In this Constitutional Petition, the petitioners Hasan Shah and Warrial Shah have challenged the order dated 4-7-1979 passed by the respondent No. l at the instance of Qadirdad respondent No.3. An injunction has also been sought for restraining the respondents from giving effect to the order dated 4-7-1979. Copy of the order was not produced alongwith the memo. of petition. However, Mr. Sattar A. Shaikh, learned Additional Advocate-General has produced a copy of the order dated 4-7-1979 of one Major Abdul Qayum addressed to the Station House Officer Kazi Ahmed (respondent No.2 herein) to the following effect:----

"According to the decision dated 30th May, 1979 of the First Additional District Judge Nawabshah, the applicant Qadirdad Mahar is entitled to use the Nali which has been sanctioned to him earlier by the Deputy Commissioner Nawabshah vide his order No.1656, dated 2-7-1970. You are accordingly directed to see that the orders of learned Courts are implemented immediately and the law and order situation is not disturbed."

2. It is the contention of Mr.G.M. Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner that in case any decree or any order has been passed in favour of respondent No.3 by any Civil Court, respondent No.3 is entitled under the law to approach the concerned Civil Court for implementation or execution of the decree or order passed by the Civil Court and that the direction given by the order dated 4-7-1979 is a direction which cannot be sustained in law. We had asked learned Additional Advocate-General to find out whether any further action is being taken by respondent No.2 pursuant to the order dated 4-7-1979. Mr. Sattar A.Shaikh, learned Additional Advocate-General informs that he has received written comments from the S. H.O., Kazi Ahmed Police Station to the effect that no further action is being taken pursuant to the order dated 4-7-1979. Then Mr.Syed Inayat Ali, learned counsel for private respondent No.3 states that litigation is pending between the respondent No.3 and petitioner in Civil Court and if he has to seek any remedy pursuant to any decree or order passed by the Civil Court, he will move the concerned Civil Court for necessary action for implementation and/or execution of the decree or order of the Civil Court.

We have not been shown any Martial Law Regulation under which the order dated 4-7-1979 has been purported to be passed nor we have been shown any document or regulation or order whereby it can be said that Major Abdul Qayum was acting as a Martial Law Authority. It is however, stated by the learned Additional Advocate-General that Major Abdul Qayum who had passed the order dated 4-7-1979 has since been transferred to Nawabshah, and there is no apprehension of any action being taken against the petitioners pursuant to the order dated 4-7-1979. Coupled with the statement of learned Additional Advocate General there is also the statement made by Mr. Syed Inayat Ali, learned counsel for the private respondent No.3 that respondent No.3 will take action only through a competent court of law, we are of the view that no further orders are necessary in this petition.

3. In view of the statements made by the learned Additional Advocate-General and Mr. Syed Inayat Ali which are taken on record, Mr. G.M. Qureshi does not press this petition. Constitutional Petition No.D-1050 of 1979 stands disposed of accordingly.

M . A . K . Petition not pressed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.