C.P.No.D-41 of 2006

1. For Katcha Peshi

2. For hearing of CMA-84/2006

10.05.2016

Mr. Shafique Ahmed Leghari, State Counsel.

................

No one is in attendance except learned State Counsel, however, Mr. Abdul Naeem Pirzada advocate has shown appearance and submits that he will seek instructions in the instant petition from the petitioners, who are not presently in contact, whereas, the counsel who was representing the petitioners has shifted from Sukkur to some other place. Such request of the learned counsel, without any contact with the petitioner, appears to be unreasonable, hence, declined.

Instant petition is pending since 2006 whereby the petitioners have expressed their grievance against the official respondents, who according to petitioner, are causing harassment in supply of water to the petitioner from the watercourse, which is subject matter of the instant petition. Notices were issued pursuant to which comments have been filed, wherein, the allegation of harassment in supply of water to the petitioner has been denied. instant petition is pending since 2006 without any useful progress, whereas, no one has shown appearance on behalf of the petitioner. it appears that either the grievance of the petitioners stand redressed or in view of the comments filed on behalf of the respondents, the petitioners have lost interest to proceed with the matter.

Accordingly, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss instant petition, which is dismissed along with listed application, however, it is observed that the official respondents shall ensure that the petitioners, if found to be entitled to be supplied water from the subject watercourse, the same shall be supplied as per share list strictly in accordance with law.

JUDGE

JUDGE

N.M.