O R D E R S H E E T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
C.P.No.D-383/2009
ORDER WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE JUDGES
16-02-2010:
Mr. Mehmood-ul-Hassan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Abdul Hafeez Khan, Advocate for the respondent No.
Mr. Nazar Muhammad Jamali, Advocate for the respondent No.
Mr. Mian Khan Malik, DAG.
- - - - - - -
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the last order dated 30.10.2009 whereby the respondent No.1 was directed to submit the law under which they are authorized to raise construction without approval from the Cantonment Board in respect of A-1 military land. Learned counsel seeks time to place on record certain procedures whereby they are authorized to do so. From the perusal of the record it is not clear that as to under what regulation these actions and construction are to be undertaken and under what law these regulations have been framed as the regulation, rule or bylaws are to be framed under the delegated legislative powers. Let such statute empowering or framing of such regulation with the relevant title be placed on record with advance copy to the petitioner. In response to their objection in respect of Section 178 of the Cantonment Act 1924, learned DAG is also directed to assist the Court on the legal obligation of law.
Adjourned to a date in office.
J U D G E
J U D G E
Nadeem
O R D E R S H E E T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
C. P. No.D-1120/2009
ORDER WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE JUDGES
1. For order on Misc.1468/10
2. For order on Misc.8906/09
3. For order on Misc.6428/09
4. For Katcha Peshi.
5. For hearing on Misc.6429/09
16.02.2010:
None for the petitioner.
Mr. Aqeel Mehmood, Advocate for the respondent No.1/KBCA.
Mr. Muhammad Ali Jan, holding brief for Mr.Naeem Suleman, Advocate for the Intervenor.
---- - - - - -
1. None present for the petitioner, therefore, CMA No.1468/10 is dismissed in non-prosecution.
2. Since the Nazir report has come and the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.1. We would dispose of the application with no order as solicited in CMA 8906/09 and the same is disposed of accordingly.
3-5. On 10.06.2009 Nazir was appointed as Commissioner to carry out inspection and submit report, as well as the KBCA was also directed to file the counter affidavit. The report shows that the petitioner has claimed unauthorized construction on large number of properties as detailed in Para -2 of the counter affidavit filed by the KBCA. It seems that the construction was raised in terms of approval in the year 1960 and further as per approval in the year 2007. It is reported that the action where unauthorized construction was raised due action was taken and unauthorized construction was removed. There seems to be no inaction on the part of the KBCA for checking unauthorized construction. This seems to be motivated petition which is accordingly dismissed subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be recovered from the petitioner. Let the notice for the recovery of the cost be issued. Notice may also be issued to the petitioner's society as to why the matter may not be sent to the regulatory authority for the cancellation of their registration.
J U D G E
J U D G E
Nadeem
O R D E R S H E E T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
C.P. No.D-913/2009
ORDER WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE JUDGES
16.02.2010:
None for the Petitioner.
Mr. Tasawar Hussain, Advocate for the Respondent.
Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate for the CDGK.
- - - - - - -
The petitioner claims to be the owner of flat site bearing No.FL-10, Block-1, Clifton KDA Scheme No.1, Karachi, claiming that he has purchased the plot in open auction and he was delivered possession on 05.05.1980 as pleaded in para-4 of the petition. The petitioner seeks removal of the encroachment from the said plot. On the last date the attention of the counsel for petitioner was drawn to the Illegal Dispossession Act. It appears that for this reason the petitioner nor his counsel is in attendance, therefore, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution alongwith all the listed applications.
J U D G E
J U D G E
Nadeem
O R D E R S H E E T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
C.P.No.D-1487/2009
ORDER WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE JUDGES
16.02.2010:
Petitioner in person.
- - - - - - -
Petitioner claims that he was admitted on merit in Chandka Medical College at Larkana and he was regularly attending the classes and he is now in second year. It is urged that since the petitioner is one of the cousin who has converted and embraced Islam who is pursuing the petitioner and other to follow him, therefore, he is not protected to follow his faith in the Chandka Medical College, Larkana, therefore, he has sought transfer to other place where his right to religion can be protected as guaranteed under the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The respondent University has declined his migration on the basis of Regulation framed in 2005. According to the petitioner such regulations are not in the legislative competence or lawful authority of the Dow Medical College of Health and Sciences Act 2004 and no one can be prohibited from seeking migration on such pretext.
Let notice be issued to the respondents as well as DAG.
J U D G E
J U D G E
O R D E R S H E E T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
C.P.No.D-847/2009
ORDER WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE JUDGES
11.02.2010:
Mr. Wasiq Ahmed Kehar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ahmed Zamir Khan, Advocate for the respondent.
Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate for the CDGK.
- - - - - - -
Learned counsel for CDGK files a statement alongwith the measurement of the work done by the petitioner as per record of the CDGK. Petitioner is directed to examine the same. Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, learned counsel states that if it is acceptable to the petitioner, the payment could be made accordingly.
Adjourned to a date in office.
J U D G E
J U D G E
Nadeem
O R D E R S H E E T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
C.P. No.D-2302/2009
ORDER WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE JUDGES
11.02.2010:
None for the petitioner.
Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate for the CDGK.
- - - - - - -
Report has been filed by the Nazir, which is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, learned counsel for CDGK, undertakes to obtain the copy of the same from the office and he shall also ensure that TMA Bin Qasim Town, has to file the comments who is primarily responsible for the encroachment within its jurisdiction. It also appears that notice on the TMA Bin Qasim Town has been served but today none is in attendance on their behalf. In case none appears for the said TMA on the next, we shall proceed with the case and decide the matter in their absence.
Adjourned to a date in office.
J U D G E
J U D G E
Nadeem
O R D E R S H E E T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
C.P.No.D-2475/09
ORDER WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE JUDGES
11.02.2010:
Mr. Juzer Q. Pishori, Advocate for the respondent No.5.
Mr. Miran Muhammad Shah, AAG.
- - - - - - -
Request is being made on behalf of Mr. Ali Lahoti, learned counsel for the petitioner as his father has been passed away. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has no objection if the matter is adjourned but he request for fixation of the case at an early date. The comments filed by Mr. Miran Muhammad Shah, learned AAG have been received by the petitioner and the respondent No.5.
Let this matter come up after two weeks.
J U D G E
J U D G E
Nadeem
O R D E R S H E E T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
C.P.No.D-2555/2009
ORDER WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE JUDGES
11.02.2010:
Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Shaikh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mian Khan Malik, DAG.
- - - - - - -
Since the petitioner has been directed against the transfer vice versa of the petitioner with Muhammad Ayub Shaikh, who has not so far been added as a party to the instant proceedings. Let Muhammad Aub Shaikh be added as Respondent No.6 in the array of respondents and the amended title be filed within three days to this effect. Let the respondent No.6 be served at the address given by learned counsel for petitioner through a statement dated 01.12.2009. Notice may also be served to the newly added respondent through Director, Material Inspection, NTDC, Karachi.
To come up after two weeks.
J U D G E
J U D G E
Nadeem
O R D E R S H E E T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
C.P.No.D-2664/2009
ORDER WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE JUDGES
1. For orders on office objection a/w reply.
2. For orders on Misc.13041/09.
3. For Katcha Peshi.
4. For order on Misc.13042/09
5. For order on Misc.13043/09
11.02.2010:
None for the petitioner.
- - - - - - -
Petitioner has impugned the order dated 05.12.2006. On the last date learned counsel for the petitioner was put to notice to satisfy the Court as to the latches before the petition could be entertained. It appears that for this reason the petitioner has chosen to remain away from the Court.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for non-prosecution alongwith listed applications.
J U D G E
J U D G E
Nadeem
O R D E R S H E E T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
C.P.No.D-2665/2009
ORDER WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE JUDGES
1. For orders on office objection a/w reply.
2. For orders on Misc.13045/09.
3. For Katcha Peshi.
4. For order on Misc.13046/09
11.02.2010:
None for the petitioner.
- - - - - - -
Petitioner has impugned the order dated 05.12.2006. On the last date learned counsel for the petitioner was put to notice to satisfy the Court as to the latches before the petition could be entertained. It appears that for this reason the petitioner has chosen to remain away from the Court.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for non-prosecution alongwith listed applications.
J U D G E
J U D G E
Nadeem