ORDER SHEET

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR.

 

Constt: Petition No.D-        3578   of 2015

 

 

DATE                         ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

 

1-     For orders on CMA.No.10083/2015 (U/A)

2-     For orders on CMA.No.10084/2015 (Ex.A)

3-     For Katcha Peshi.

 

 

07th. October, 2015.

 

 

                        Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Channa, Advocate along with petitioner.

 

 

 

                        Through instant petition, petitioner has alleged harassment by respondent No.5 i.e Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Siyal, Medical Superintendent, Peoples Medical College, Nawabshah (SBA) on the ground that since the petitioner has lodged Complaint No.271 of 2015 against respondent No.5 before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sukkur, therefore, respondent No.5 is causing harassment so that the petitioner may withdraw from such complaint. It has been further stated that show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, however, the petitioner has submitted its reply  and will face the departmental proceedings in accordance with law but submits that there is serious apprehension that respondent No.5 will cause harm to the petitioner.

 

                        From the tentative perusal of the contents of the petition and submissions made by learned Counsel for petitioner, it appears that some departmental proceedings are pending against the petitioner who has submitted his response, however, no final order has been passed so far and it further appears that petitioner has also lodged a direct complaint against respondent No.5 namely              Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Siyal, which according to the learned Counsel for petitioner is also pending disposal before the learned Judge (Anti-Corruption). Record shows that no material has been placed on record nor any instances whatsoever has been cited which will suggest that the respondent No.5 has caused any harassment to the petitioner which may require this Court to take cognizance in it’s constitutional jurisdiction. Similarly, the petitioner has not even approached the concerned police or Magistrate for lodging such report or complaint regarding alleged harassment by respondent No.5. Instant petition appears to be misconceived on facts as well as in law, whereas no case for invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court without resorting to seek alternate remedy in accordance with law. Accordingly, instant petition is hereby dismissed in limine along with listed applications. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the relevant authorities, in case of any undue harassment is caused by the respondent No.5, in accordance with law.

JUDGE

 

JUDGE

 

 

A.R.BROHI