Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 3036 = 2004 SLD 3036 = 2004 PLJ 1221
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 14839 of 1994, decided on 24.1.1995.
Presented By: IJAZ NISAR, SHARIF HUSSAIN BOKHARI; CH. MUSHTAQ; RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND AQIL MIRZA, JJ.
Kh. Muhammad Sharif, Advocate for Petitioner. Mian Abdus Sattar Najam, A.G., Punjab assisted by M/s Shabbar Raza Rizvi, Addl. A.G. and Mansoor Alamgir Qazi, AAG for
Respondents.

Sheikh RASHID AHMAD-Petitioner

VERSUS

D.M. RAWALPINDI etc.-Respondent

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199(l)(b)(i)

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- —-Art. 199(l)(b)(i) Maintenance of Public order Ordinance, 1960-S. 3 Constitutional Petition jurisdiction-Detention order-Challenge to-Extra-ordinary remedy to aggrieved person of invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High Court with underlying purpose to keep administrative and judicial authorities within bounds of their jurisdiction--When law provides a remedy to another authority fully competent to give relief, any indulgence to contrary by High Court is likely to produce a sense of distrust in those authorities and to cast an undeserved reflection on their integrity and competency and   would defeat legislative in tent--Held--Petition without availing of adequate remedy under law because jurisdiction under Article 199 of Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 is subject to law-Petitioner is directed to avail remedy in accordance with law-Petition dismissed.     [P. 1224] A & B Date of hearing: 24.1.1995.                                                                                                          order Sh. Rashid Ahmad, M.N.A. from Constituency No. N.A. 38-Rawalpindi has filed this habeas corpus petition under Article 199(l)(b) (i) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenging his detention order dated 6.12.1994 passed by the District Magistrate, Rawalpindi under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, for a period of ninety days. 2.  It is contended that the detention order lacks material particulars and the memorandum of grounds is without any proper and reasonable material. He did not involve himself in any prejudicial activity within the meaning of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The District Magistrate has abused his powers in colourful exercise of the authority for extraneous consideration. The detention order is illegal,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register