Lahore Cantt Cooperative Housing Society Case Law
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a contempt of court petition filed against the Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society (now Defence Housing Authority) and its alleged Secretary, Col. (R) Ghulam Jafar. The petitioner, Amjad Ikram, claimed that the society and its secretary had defied court orders dated 11.11.2002 and 14.11.2002, which required maintaining status quo, by refusing to unlock the gate of a school as directed. He sought punitive action against the respondents for disobeying the court.
During proceedings, the housing society itself was removed from the case since it was a juristic entity, leaving only the individual named as Secretary, Ghulam Jafar, to respond. He denied ever holding that position or disobeying any court order. To verify the facts, the court had sent a bailiff to inspect the site, and also summoned the local police officer (SHO) for a statement.
The court found that none of the key evidence, the bailiff's report, the police daily diary entry, or the SHO's statement, actually named Ghulam Jafar as the person who obstructed the court's orders. Instead, they identified two different individuals, a Major and another Colonel, as responsible.
Since there was no evidence directly implicating Ghulam Jafar, the Lahore High Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish a prima facie case of contempt against him and dismissed the application. The case highlights that contempt charges require clear, specific evidence linking the accused person to the alleged violation.
یہ مقدمہ لاہور کینٹونمنٹ کوآپریٹو ہاؤسنگ سوسائٹی (اب ڈیفنس ہاؤسنگ اتھارٹی) اور اس کے مبینہ سیکرٹری کرنل (ریٹائرڈ) غلام جعفر کے خلاف دائر کی گئی توہین عدالت کی درخواست سے متعلق ہے۔ درخواست گزار امجد اکرم نے دعویٰ کیا تھا کہ سوسائٹی اور اس کے سیکرٹری نے 11 نومبر 2002 اور 14 نومبر 2002 کے عدالتی احکامات کی خلاف ورزی کی ہے، جن میں جوں کی توں حالت برقرار رکھنے کی ہدایت دی گئی تھی، اور ہدایت کے باوجود ایک سکول کا گیٹ کھولنے سے انکار کیا گیا۔ انہوں نے عدالت کی نافرمانی پر مدعا علیہان کے خلاف سزائی کارروائی کا مطالبہ کیا۔
کارروائی کے دوران ہاؤسنگ سوسائٹی کو، چونکہ وہ ایک قانونی ہستی (juristic entity) تھی، مقدمے سے خارج کر دیا گیا، جس کے بعد صرف سیکرٹری کے طور پر نامزد فرد غلام جعفر ہی جوابدہ رہ گئے۔ انہوں نے اس عہدے پر کبھی فائز ہونے یا کسی عدالتی حکم کی خلاف ورزی کرنے کی تردید کی۔ حقائق کی ت
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2014 Cr.C . ( Lahore ) 738 (DB) Present: Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan and Shujaat Ali Khan, JJ. AMJAD IKRAM --Petitioner versus LAHORE CANTT. COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., LAHORE through its Secretary etc . --Respondents Crl.Org. No. 1351-w of 2002, decided on 21.4.2014. Constitution of Pakistan , 1973-- ----Art. 204--Constitutional petition--Criminal original petition--Contempt of Court--Report of Bailiff, Roznamcha Waqiati and statement of SHO were available on record but in all these three documents name of respondent was not available--Bailiff, SHO and Roznamcha was naming one Secretary of DMA and Major--As prima-facie petitioner has failed to made out a case of contempt of Court against respondent and as such application failed and dismissed accordingly. [P. 739] A Mr. Tipu Salman Makhdoom , Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Adnan Shuja Butt , Advocate for Respondent No. 2. Mr. Umer Sharif , Advocate for Respondent No. 1. Date of hearing: 21.4.2014. Order The petitioner filed an application C.M.No . 1529/2002 for necessary punitive action and also for securing, through coercive measures, the orders dated 11.11.2002 and 14.11.2002 passed by this Court. In this Criminal Original Lahore Cantt . Cooperative Housing Society-Ltd (Now D.H.A) was arrayed as Respondent No. 1 through its Secretary, Col. (R) Ghulam Jafar . The Col. (R) Ghulam Jafar , the Secretary of DHA was arrayed as Respondent No. 2. The petitioner alleged that respondents have committed the offence of contempt of Court by not honoring the orders of this Court. This Court issued notice to respondents on C.M. No. 1/2002 in Writ Petition No. 2414/1995 for maintenance of status quo. The petitioner's counsel informed the respondents about the said order but the respondents refused to accept the same. That inspite of the receipt of order dated 11.11.2002 the respondents chose not to unlock the gate of school and thereby defy/disobey the orders of this Court. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there are series of orders which were not obeyed by the respondents and as such the respondents arc liable to be prosecuted under the law of contempt of Court.
2. Vide order dated 16.9.2009 Respondent No. 1 was deleted from the array of respondents as he was a juristic person, however Respondent No. 2 was directed to file reply. Respondent No. 2 filed reply and stated that he was not the Secretary of Respondent No. 1. This Court directed the Bailiff of this Court to inspect the site and report. The Bailiff of this Court appeared at site on 30.11.2002 along with the petitioner. The entire report of Bailiff shows that it was one Major Baig Muhammad and Col. Farooq , Secretary of Respondent No. 1, who misbehaved with him and have not accepted the orders of this Court. The report of Bailiff as well as Rupt Roznamcha Waqiati No. 32 dated 30.11.2002 is available on record. This Court also summoned the SHO concerned who appeared and made the statement before the Court but in his entire statement he has not named the Respondent No. 2 the accused.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Respondent No. 2 is the Secretary, he flouted the orders of this Court and as such he is liable to be prosecuted for the honour and dignity of this Court.
4. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the entire proceedings against respondent is based on misunderstanding, the Respondent No. 2 never violated the order of this Court nor he remained Secretary D.H.A, nor he has any intention to violate the Court's orders being an educated and responsible citizen.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The report of Bailiff, Roznamcha Waqiati and statement of SHO are available on record but in all these three documents name of Respondent No. 2 Ghulam Jaffar is not available. The Bailiff, SHO and Roznamcha is naming one Col. Farooq , Secretary of DHA and Major Baig Muhammad. As prima-facie the petitioner has failed to made out a case of contempt of Court against respondent and as such application fails and dismissed accordingly. (A.S.) Application dismissed