Ch. Shabbir Ahmad vs Riaz Bangash Head HR
This matter arises from a contempt application filed under the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, alleging non-compliance with a court order passed in a writ petition. The court had previously directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's application within 15 days via a reasoned speaking order after a hearing. Upon review, the court found that the respondent had indeed heard the petitioner in person, constituting sufficient compliance with the court's prior direction. Furthermore, the court observed that the contempt application failed to establish a violation under Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. The petitioner attempted to challenge the validity of the respondent's subsequent decision, but the court held that contempt proceedings are not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the legitimacy or merits of an administrative decision. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court affirmed that it cannot sit in judgment over such findings as a court of appeal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies against the authority's decision.
- Can a contempt application be used to challenge the validity or merits of an administrative order passed in compliance with a court's direction?
- Does hearing a petitioner in person constitute sufficient compliance with a court order directing an authority to decide an application?
- Is the High Court empowered to sit in judgment over the findings of an administrative authority in contempt proceedings?
- Section 3, Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003
- Section 4, Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003
This application filed under Sections 3 & 4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, arises out of constitutional jurisdiction exercised by this Court in Writ Petition No.6536/2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.05.2018 in manner and mode as suggested by the learned counsel representing the petitioner , in the following manner: "The request of learned counsel for petitioner is reasonable. Respondent No.4, Head HR, NRSP Micro Finance Bank Limited, Bahawalpur is directed to decide the petitioner 's application, if pending disposal with him, within 15 days after receipt of certified copy of this order strictly in accordance with law through a well reasoned speaking order after allowing opportunity of hearing to petitioner and all concerned persons under intimation to Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court."
2. Perusal of order/letter dated 21.05.2018, annexed with this petition as Annexure 'C', reveals that after issuing aforesaid direction, the petitioner was heard in person on 17.05.2018 in respect of his grievance, which in itself is sufficient compliance of this Court' s order . Besides, the averments made in this contempt application do not cover Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. Even otherwise, the petitioner has tried to challenge the validity of the said order-letter . Suffice it to observe that this forum is not to explain the legitimacy or otherwise of the said order in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported as Chief Executive, Multan Electric Power Company (MEPCO), Multan and others VS Messrs Colony Textile Mills LTD and others (2012 SCMR 906 ), wherein it was held as under:- "08. Once a finding has been handed down by the Committee, it would not be for us to comment upon that as this Court by no stretch of imagination can sit in judgment over the said finding as a Court of appeal. It was in view of this essential aspect of the case that this Court while disposing of Criminal Original Petition No.82 of 2009 observed that petitioners may avail remedy , if so desired, before the compete nt forum in view of the finding submitted by the Committee."
3. In view of the above this petition is devoid of force hence dismissed . However , the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy before the appropriate forum against the decision taken by the authority in accordance with law .