MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs MUHAMMAD IRFAN ELAHI, D.C. and others
This criminal original petition arose from the respondent's failure to comply with a High Court order dated 3-8-2000, which directed the Deputy Commissioner to decide a pending application within one month. The petitioner initiated contempt proceedings due to this non-compliance. During the proceedings, the respondent argued that the petition had become infructuous because the office of the Deputy Commissioner had been abolished following the promulgation of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. The Court, relying on the principle that it may consider subsequent events when deciding cases, acknowledged that the office in question no longer existed. Consequently, the Court held that the petition had become infructuous. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle that contempt proceedings are a matter between the contemner and the Court, and in the exercise of its discretion, it declined to issue a notice to the respondent. The petition was accordingly dismissed as having no merits.
- Can a court consider subsequent events, such as the abolition of an office, when deciding a pending petition?
- Does the abolition of an office render a contempt petition regarding that office infructuous?
- Is the court obligated to issue a notice in contempt proceedings if the underlying cause of action has ceased to exist?
- Article 201, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001
ORDER
' Brief facts out of which present criminal original arises are that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No, 15442 of 2000 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 3-8-2000. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law on the application of the petitioner pending before him within one month, from the receipt of order of this Court. The Deputy Commissioner concerned failed to pass any order within prescribed period.. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this criminal original.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner requested for an adjournment to seek fresh instructions from the petitioner but subsequently he agreed to argue the case. He submits that respondent No,3 filed reply of the petition which reveals that the respondent committed contempt of this Court.
He further submits that direction of this Court is binding on each and every organ of. The State by virtue of Article 201 of the Constitution.
3. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate-General, submits that the petition has no merits as the offices of the Deputy Commissioners, were abolished in view of promulgation of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
5. It is settled principle of law that this Court has ample jurisdiction to look into the subsequent events at the time of deciding the cases as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of High Court in case" Nasir Jamal v. Zubeida Begum" (1990 CLC 1069) Since the office of Deputy Commissioner has been abolished in view of promulgation of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, therefore, the petition has become infructuous. Even otherwise, it is settled principle of law that contempt is always between the contemner and Court. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to issue notice to the respondent.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this criminal original has no merits and the same is dismissed.
Contempt .