Writ Petitions Contempt of Court Labour Appeal Criminal Revision First Appeal against Orrder ...

512 Pages·2011·3.86 MB·English

Writ Petitions
Contempt of Court
Labour Appeal
Criminal Revision
First Appeal against Orrder
Second Appeal against Order
First Appeal Against Banking
Tax Reference
Transfer Applications

VOLUME-IV

Pages 1403-1913

Peshawar High Court
1403
Abdul Qayyum --- Appellant/Petitioner (s)

Versus
IG Police --- Respondent (s)

JUDGMENT
W.P (HCP) No. 1505/2010 Date of hearing 30.06.2010

EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, CJ.- Petitioner through the instant
petition has asked for the issuance of an appropriate writ directing
the respondents to produce the detenue in the Court and to show
under what law and authority, he has been hauled up.

2. According to the learned counsel for the
respondents, the detenue is not with APA or any other official. The
learned counsel for the petitioner in view of this development has
been rendered clueless. He, thus, wants to withdraw this petition
with the permission to file a fresh one after getting some ink-link
about the whereabouts of the detenue.

Announced.
30. 06. 2010 CHIEF JUSTICE

J U D G E
Peshawar High Court
1404
Hamid Hussain --- Appellant/Petitioner (s)

Versus
Director --- Respondent (s)

JUDGMENT
W.P No. 2337/2010 Date of hearing 01.07.2010

EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, CJ.-Petitioners through the instant
petition have asked for the issuance of an appropriate writ directing
the respondents to dispose of their applications in accordance with
the posting and transfer policy, formulated by the Provincial
Government and the judgment of this Court rendered in Writ
Petition No.1865/2007 on 24.10.2008.

2. We have gone through the available record
carefully and considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners.

3. A perusal of the record would reveal that the
petitioners have already filed applications before the departmental
authority, vis-à-vis, their posting and transfer in accordance with
the policy but they haven’t been decided so far despite the lapse of
sufficient time. Since, many other petitions have been disposed of
by issuing alike directions, we, also direct the respondents in this
case to dispose of the applications of the petitioners in accordance
with the policy and judgment of this Court within a fortnight. This
writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Announced.
01. 07. 2010 CHIEF JUSTICE

J U D G E

Peshawar High Court
1405
Mst. Nazia --- Appellant/Petitioner (s)

Versus
Government of KPK --- Respondent (s)

JUDGMENT
W.P No. 2399/2010 Date of hearing 01.07.2010

EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, CJ.-Petitioner through the instant
petition has questioned the order dated 10.06.2010 of respondent
No.3, whereby, she has been directed to perform her duties on the
station, she was working before the issuance of the order dated
27.04.2010.

2. We have gone through the available record
carefully and considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.

3. Since in view of the judgments rendered in the
cases of Miss Rukhsana Ijaz vs. Secretary, Education, Punjab &
others (1997 SCMR 167); Ayyaz Anjum vs. Government of
Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Department through
Secretary and others (1997 SCMR 169); Rafique Ahmad
Chaudhry vs. Ahmad Nawaz Malik & others (1997 SCMR 170);
Secretary Education NWFP, Peshawar and 2 others vs.
Mustamir Khan & another (2005 SCMR 17) and Peer
Muhammad vs. Government of Baluchistan through Chief
Secretary & others (2007 SCMR 54), posting and transfer being
related to the terms and condition of service can be raised before
the departmental authority and then before the Service Tribunal,
this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, can’t step-in, atleast,
at this stage. We, instead of dismissing the writ petition, treat it as
a representation before the departmental authority by following the
dictum rendered in the case of Muhammad Anis & others vs.
Abdul Haseeb & others (PLD 1994 SC 539) and direct the office
Peshawar High Court
1406
to send it to respondent No.2 for decision in accordance with law
within one month. This writ petition, thus, stands disposed of.

Announced.
01. 07. 2010 CHIEF JUSTICE

J U D G E
Peshawar High Court
1407
Dr. Iqtidar --- Appellant/Petitioner (s)

Versus
Dr. Amjad Ali --- Respondent (s)

JUDGMENT
W.P No. 2390/2010 Date of hearing 06.07.2010

EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, CJ.-Petitioner through the instant
petition has asked for the issuance of an appropriate writ annulling
the seniority list, whereby, respondent No.1 has been given
seniority from the date of an order, which stood withdrawn.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner by referring to para-18 of the writ petition contended that
this gross illegality was brought to the notice of concerned quarters
but strangely enough no order has so far been passed in this behalf.

3. We have gone through the available record
carefully and considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.

4. Since the questions urged before us can well be
urged before the departmental authority and then before the
Service Tribunal, we, while hearing a petition under Article 199 of
the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, can’t
intervene. We, instead of dismissing the writ petition, treat it as a
representation before the departmental authority by following the
dictum rendered in the case of Muhammad Anis & others vs.
Abdul Haseeb & others (PLD 1994 SC 539) and direct the office
to send it to Secretary Health for decision in accordance with law
within one month. This writ petition, thus, stands disposed of.

Announced.
06. 07. 2010 CHIEF JUSTICE

J U D G E
Peshawar High Court
1408
Dr. Iqtidar --- Appellant/Petitioner (s)

Versus
Dr. Muhammad Arif --- Respondent (s)

JUDGMENT
W.P No. 2391/2010 Date of hearing 06.07.2010

EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, CJ.-Petitioner through the instant
petition has asked for the issuance of an appropriate writ in the
terms as under:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that on
acceptance of this writ petition this Honuorable Court
may direct respondents No.2, 3 & 4 to immediately
take strict disciplinary action against respondent No.1
for his dishonest demeanor which is on record. This
Honuorable Court may also direct that necessary
disciplinary action may be taken against respondent
No.1 under Civil Servants Efficiency and Discipline
Rules, 1973 and or removal from Service (Special
Powers Ordinance), 2001. This Honuorable Court
may direct that pending any action to be taken against
respondent No.1, he may be suspended from service
for his gross misconduct mentioned above and direct
respondents No.2, 3 & 4 to remove respondent No.1
from both the jobs which he is holding. This
Honuorable Court may also direct the NAB
authorities to look into the aspect of withdrawal of
salary by respondent No.1 in connivance with the
other official respondents for 8 years which must be
deposited in Government Treasury.”

2. Since the prayer reproduced above can well be dealt
with by the departmental authority, we, while hearing a petition
under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of
Peshawar High Court
1409
Pakistan, 1973, can’t intervene, atleast, at this stage. We, instead of
dismissing the writ petition, treat it as a representation before the
departmental authority by following the dictum rendered in the
case of Muhammad Anis & others vs. Abdul Haseeb & others
(PLD 1994 SC 539) and direct the office to send it to Secretary
Health for decision in accordance with law within one month. This
writ petition, thus, stands disposed of.

Announced.
06. 07. 2010 CHIEF JUSTICE

J U D G E
Peshawar High Court
1410
Faqeer Hussain --- Appellant/Petitioner (s)

Versus
NAB --- Respondent (s)

JUDGMENT

W.P.No. 1647/2010 Date of hearing 06.07.2010

EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, C.J.- Petitioner who has been
sentenced to one year R.I. with a fine of Rs.5,75,742/- has asked for
his release on bail mainly on the ground that the sentence is short
and his appeal is not likely to be heard in near future.

2. The learned Additional Deputy Prosecutor General
appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the petitioner
remained absconder, that he deserved much greater punishment but
he was awarded far less than that and that there is also an appeal for
enhancement of sentence, therefore, he does not deserve the
concession of bail at least at this stage.

3. We have gone through the record carefully and have
also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties.

4. The record reveals that the petitioner has been
proceeded against and convicted for accumulating assets to the tune
of Rs. 5 lac. He has been awarded one year sentence of
imprisonment over and above fine of the same magnitude. Since the
main appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and
sentence cannot be heard in near future owing to heavy backlog and
that he has already undergone more than two months R.I., we do
not feel persuaded not to suspend it. This petition is thus allowed
and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail if he furnishes
bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5 lac, with two sureties each in the like
Peshawar High Court
1411
amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar(Judicial) of
this Court.

CHIEF JUSTICE
Announced on
06.07.2010 J U D G E
Peshawar High Court