GHULAM MOHYUDDIN vs AZHAR HUSSAIN AND Another
This petition for contempt of court was filed under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din against a Deputy Settlement Commissioner and another respondent. The petitioner alleged contempt on the basis that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed an order declaring the petitioner's occupation of a roof and latrine illegal following an application for demarcation submitted by the respondent pursuant to earlier observations of the High Court and Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the respondents committed contempt of court by pursuing and adjudicating the demarcation matter before the Settlement authorities, and whether an alleged lack of statutory jurisdiction due to the repeal of Evacuee Laws constituted contempt. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondents had not violated any order issued by the High Court or Supreme Court. The Court laid down that initiating or conducting proceedings before an authority does not constitute contempt where no judicial order has been disobeyed, and jurisdictional objections must be raised before the relevant forum or through appropriate constitutional remedies rather than a contempt petition.
- Does an authority commit contempt of court by acting on observations made in prior judicial orders permitting a party to approach it?
- Can a party file a contempt petition under Article 204 of the Constitution when no order or direction of the court has been violated?
- Is a challenge to the statutory jurisdiction of an administrative or settlement officer properly raised in contempt proceedings?
- Article 204, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. QAISER KHAN, J.-A house on the first floor bearing No. 1421 etc. Situated In which Bazar, Rawalpindi Cantt. Was transferred to Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din. Shops underneath the first floor were transferred to various arsons. Shop No. 1279 was transferred to Shabzada Mian. It appears bat the roof of this shop with a small latrine on it was taken possession of by Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din. Shahzada Mian approached the Rent controller for the ejectment of Ghulam Mohy-nd-Din from the latrine and the learned Rent Controller decided the case in his favour on 16-12-1963. Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din, however, went up in appeal to the Court of District edge and his appeal was accepted on 4-3-1966 and the petition of Shahzada Can dismissed. Shahzada Mian thereupon filed a writ petition against he aforesaid order of the learned District Judge and a learned Single Judge f the High Court by his order dated 15-11-1973 dismissed the writ petition. It was remarked in the order of the learned judge that if the petitioner, namely, Shahzada Mian, had any grievance, he could move the Settlement authorities for the demarcation of his portion especially as to whether the shrine in question fell to his share or not. Shahzada Mian filed a petition or special leave to appeal against the aforesaid order of the learned Single judge and this Court by its order dated 2-7-1974 dismissed the petition.
2. In the last paragraph of the order, it was remarked that under the circums--tances the learned Single lodge was right In asking the petitioners to approach the Settlement authorities for the demarcation of his portion if he felt aggrieved by the division made by them.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid remarks of the learned Judge in the High Court and of the learned Judges in this Court Shahzada Mian approached the Chief Settlement Commissioner who forwarded his application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for disposal. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 24.3-1976 held that Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din had illegally occupied the roof of Shop No. 1279 alongwith the small latrine thereon which formed part of the shop transferred to Shahsads Mian. Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din has filed this petition under Article 204 of the Constitution praying for taking action for contempt against the Deputy Settlement Commissioner end Shahzada Mian.
4. After hearing Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record, and coin through the various orders we find that there is no merit in this petition, The respondents have not violated any order issued either by the High Court or this Court and the question of taking action for contempt against them does not arise. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction as the Evacuee Laws had been repealed rife Act No. XIV of 1975 but then this point should have been raised by him before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and he ca also file a writ petition against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner if be acted without jurisdiction. Since respondents have not violated any order Issued by this Court, this petition is, therefore, dismissed.