GUL MARJAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LORALAI art — 2022 MLD 1151 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

GUL MARJAN VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LORALAI art.199---Constitutional petition---Constitutional petition filed against the order passed by Deputy Commission whereby he ordered for cancellation of arms licence, CNIC, local certificate of petitioner and his family members---Record showed that the Deputy Commissioner granted permission to the petitioner for holding public procession vide order dated 7th February, 2020---Suddenly, on next day, Deputy Commissioner cancelled the permission, which, prima-facie, reflected that the same was not conveyed to the concerned people, thus, procession/rally was conducted on 8th February, 2020 resultantly FIR under Ss. 153, 153-a, 283, 342, 34, P.P.C. & 188 Cr.P.C. was lodged against the petitioner and others---another FIR was also lodged against the petitioner and others under Ss.224, 225, 353, 186, 504, 506 & 34, P.P.C. read with S. 7 anti-Terrorism act, 1999 on 9th February, 2020, meaning thereby that whatsoever had allegedly been committed by the petitioner and others, the law was taken into motion and accordingly FIRs had been lodged against the petitioner and others, which could have serve the purpose for offences allegedly committed by the petitioner---Held, subsequent actions taken by the respondent/Deputy Commissioner seemed to be result of mala fide and ulterior motives contrary to Fundamental Rights of citizens protected under the Constitution---Deputy Commissioner was neither competent to cancel the arms licence of the petitioner, which was issued by the Ministry of Interior nor he was competent to cancel the CNIC of the petitioner, which was issued by NaDRa nor he was competent to freeze the Bank account of the petitioner as well as to cancel the local certificate of the petitioner and his family members without issuing any notice to the petitioner---all the actions taken by the Deputy Commissioner were violative of relevant laws and the Constitution---Perusal of record made it clear that Deputy Commissioner had passed the impugned orders in a slipshod, cursory and thoughtlessly manner without application of his judicial mind---Thus, orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner were without lawful authority based upon mis-exercise of authority and were malicious in nature---Constitutional petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and all the documents were restored in its original position. Head NotesCase Description

GUL MARJAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LORALAI art — 2022 MLD 1151 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 MLD