Muhammad Hanif

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No.____________Q/2002 Muhammad Hanif

Vs

S.H.O. etc.

INDEX S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES 1

Urgent Form

2

Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-

3

Writ Petition.

4

Affidavit

5

7

Copies of orders dated 19.12.2000 and 25.1.2001 Copies of the complaint, forwarding letter and statements of respectables. Copy of F.I.R.

8

Copy of F.I.R.

9

Dispensation Application.

10

Affidavit.

11

Power of attorney.

6

A& B C, D & D F G

PETITIONER, Dated: __________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No._____________Q/2002 Muhammad Hanif S/o Sakhi Muhammad, caste Rajpoot, R/o 86/ML, Tehsil Kahror Pakka, District Layyah. ……PETITIONER

VERSUS 1.

S.H.O. P.S. Fateh Pur, Layyah.

2.

District Nazim, Layyah.

3.

Executive District Officer (Health) Layyah.

4.

Mr. Khalid Mehmood, Deputy Director Health, Tehsil Karor Pakka, District Layya.

5.

Shafqat Ali Dispenser/Incharge Govt. Rural Dispensary Chak No. 86/ML, Tehsil Karor, District Layya.

6.

M. Sarwar S/o Fazal Muhammad, caste Gujjar, R/o 90 ML, Tehsil Karor, District Layya, Nazim Union Council No. 18.

7.

M. Mahmood Khan S/o Haji Jan Muhammad, caste Rajput, R/o 81/ML, Tehsil Karor, District Layya, Naib Nazim Union Council No. 18. …RESPONDENTS

Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 along-with all the enabling provisions.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations. 2. That the petitioner is a resident within the jurisdiction of Union Council No. 18 of District Layyah; and posted as Ward-boy in the Government Rural Dispensary Chak No. 86/ML, Thesil Kahror District Layyah. The real paternal uncle of the petitioner contesting the election for the seat of General Councillor from that Union Council. 3. That during the course of election campaign, the paternal uncle of the petitioner namely Sikandar Ali filed an objection petition before the District Returning Officer, Layyah, against the respondents No. 6 & 7. This petition was accepted vide order dated 19.12.2000, passed by the District Returning Officer. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the respondents No. 6 & 7 challenged the order dated 19.12.2000 through a W.P. No. 13021/2000; and vide order dated 25.1.2001 the respondents were allowed to contest the election. Copies of orders dated 19.12.2000 and 25.1.2001 are Annexes “A & B”. 4. That the respondents No. 6 & 7 succeeded the election but both the respondents nursed a grudge against Sikandar Ali and his relatives. The litigation between the parties was not a matter concerned with the petitioner, but the respondents No. 6 & 7 started to disturb the smooth life of the petitioner. A complaint having the story that the petitioner had adopted illegal practice, was addressed to respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 6, which was forwarded to respondent No. 3. This application was further forwarded to the office of respondent No. 4 for the registration of case. During the inquiry, Lambardar and respectables of concerned area made statements in favour of the petitioner and the complaint was turned down. Copies of the complaint, forwarding letter and statements of respectables are Annexes “C, D & E”.

5. That in retaliation of that and on the instructions and directions of respondents No. 6 & 7 and 2, an F.I.R. No. 168 U/s 380/411 P.P.C. was got registered by the respondent No. 4 at police station Fateh Pur on 18.7.2002. Copy of the F.I.R. is Annex “F”. 6. That the petitioner seeks quashment of the F.I.R. inter-alia on the following: GROUNDS i)

That the veracity of the narration in F.I.R. on the face of it is not believable.

ii)

That prima facie there is no evidence against the petitioner and even not witness is quoted in the F.I.R.

iii)

That it is a case of private recovery. The alleged stolen medicines were produced by the complainant and such recovery is never believed by the courts of law.

iv)

That there is unexplained delay of eight days in the registration of case.

v)

That the Dispenser/Incharge of dispensary concerned issued a certificate that there is no shortage of medicines in the store. Copy of certificate is Annex “G”.

vi)

That the petitioner is a Govt. servant and the local police has no authority to register a case against him.

vii)

That the registration of case is result of political rivalry and exposing the revengeful behaviour of respondent No. 4.

viii)

That the public functionaries concerned while dealing with the matter, did not apply their independent mind, but acted under the political influence.

7. That the petitioner is left with no other alternate, adequate, efficacious or speedy remedy except to invoke the extraordinary

constitutional jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, for the redressal of his grievance. In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the F.I.R. No. 168/2002 dated 18.7.02 U/s 380/411 P.P.C. P.S.

Fateh Pur (Layyah)

may please be quashed in the interest of justice. Any other writ, direction, order or relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may graciously be awarded in the interest of justice and equity. Humble petitioner, Dated: ________ Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

Certificate: Certified as per instructions of the client that this is the first petition on the subject matter. No such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No.____________Q/2002 Muhammad Hanif

Vs

S.H.O. etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: Muhammad Hanif S/o Sakhi Muhammad, caste Rajpoort, R/o 86/ML, Tehsil Kahror Pakka, District Layya.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT

Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of July 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. ____________/2002 In W.P. No.__________Q/2002 Muhammad Hanif

Vs

S.H.O. etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. ========================================= Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the above-titled application is being filed before this Hon’ble Court, the contents of which should be considered as part & parcel of the main petition. 2. That certified copies of Annexes “

” are not

readily available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of the original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. APPLICANT, Dated: __________ Through: Hamad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. ____________/2002 In W.P. No.__________Q/2002 Muhammad Hanif

Vs

S.H.O. etc.

DISPENSATION APPLICATION

AFFIDAVIT of: Muhammad Hanif S/o Sakhi Muhammad, caste Rajpoort, R/o 86/ML, Tehsil Kahror Pakka, District Layya.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of July 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT