Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 1444 2006 SLD 1444 2006 PTD 1956
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 2341 of 1995, decision dated: 24-11-2005
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MEHDI HASSAN

VS

HANIF MUSA and 7 others

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art.199---Constitutional petition, allegations in---Proof---High Court would act on the basis of record. ORDER UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---The case of the petitioner as disclosed in the amended petition is that 480 Tolas of gold was handed over by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 for manufacturing jewellery. This gold was allegedly seized from the respondent No.1 in an illegal raid conducted on 2-4-1988 by the customs authorities headed by the respondent No.2. The petitioner has thereafter run from pillar to post seeking recovery of the said gold. Ultimately he obtained recommendations from the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib dated 25-3-1991 to the effect that the grievance requires investigation by the F.I.A. as well as superior authorities in the C.B.R. Learned counsel for the petitioner complains against inaction by the said authorities in complying with the recommendations by the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib. He further submits that the remedies under the Customs Act, 1969 against the illegal raid alleged by him could not be availed because the customs authorities deny that any raid was ever conducted. Therefore, the application dated 26-6-1988 by the petitioner to the Collector of Customs, respondent No.5 was the only available remedy that was adopted by the petitioner in order to seek relief. Be that as it may, learned counsel submits that the recommendations of the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib made in the case also remain uncomplied. 2. The officer of the Customs Department has referred to the parawise comments filed in this matter. These parawise comments contain a letter issued by the petitioner dated 30-4-1988 in favour of the respondent No.1 acknowledging receipt of the jewellery manufactured from the gold supplied by the petitioner. The officer denies any raid having been conducted by the customs authorities and relies upon the said document to state that the dispute, if any, is between the petitioner and the respondent No.l. The petitioner is admittedly not a witness to the alleged raid and relies solely upon a statement of the respondent No.1, who has in turn given…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492