30.5.2011 Mr. Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat, Advocate for the ...

30.5.2011 Mr. Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. Wali Muhammad Khan, AAG.
The District Coordination Officer City District
Government Lahore through letter No.RDM/656 dated
19.5.2011, in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of
Section 3 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order
Ordinance, 1960, ordered that Khawaja Khalid Pervaiz son of
Ghulam Haider resident of House No.14, Street No.22, Hall
Road, Lahore be arrested and detained for a period of 30
days with immediate effect and that his custody be placed
under the superintendence of Central Jail, Kot Lakhpat,
Lahore. The reasons for the said detention have been given in
para-2 of the aforementioned order which are reproduced
hereunder:-
“AND WHEREAS, 18.05.2011 District Officer (Public
Facilities) City District Government, Lahore has
reported that Khawaja Khalid Pervaiz is running an
illegal parking stand at Hall Road, Bagichi on a
piece of Government Land. He has reported that
on 16.4.2011 he alongwith police party got
vacated the illegal possession from him and
deputed his Tax Collector on the site in question to

W.P. No.11608/2011 2
collect Government Revenue from said parking
point but next day, Khawaja Khalid Pervaiz and
other unknown armed persons again occupied
the said State Land/plot and threatened the
official of City District Government, Lahore of dire
consequences in case he came back at the spot.
He has further added that many attempts were
made by the City District Government Lahore
during last two months to take over the said State
Land but Khawaja Khalid Pervaiz threatened that
he will not handover the site at any cost. Thus, he
is forcibly continuing his possession over
Government Land and is illegally collecting
Government Tax from general public. He is not
willing to abide by the law of the land and is
posing threats to public safety and order.”
2. The aforementioned order has been assailed
before this Court through this constitutional petition mainly on
the grounds that the impugned order has been rendered in
complete oblivion of the facts and circumstances of the case,
the same is manifestly illegal, incompetent, without lawful
authority and has been passed with malafide to serve the
ends of somebody else to deprive lawful owner i.e respondent
No.4 of his property; father of the petitioner is in possession of
the said plot as tenant of the original and lawful owner; the
registration of the criminal case against him is hardly a ground
to order his arrest and detention under the Maintenance of
Punjab Public Order Ordinance, 1960; the petitioner is not
allowed to see his father; ex-facie there is no material with

W.P. No.11608/2011 3
respondent No.2 so as to justify the arrest and detention of the
petitioner’s father; the detenu is an old man and that currently
no legal assistance is being provided to him. It has been
prayed that while allowing this petition, the impugned order
dated 19.5.2011 be struck down and respondents be directed
to release the petitioner’s father forthwith.
3. Conversely, the contentions of the learned AAG
are that the impugned order has been passed under the
Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, which
provides filing of a representation by a detenu before the
Home Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Home
Department and that he cannot invoke the constitutional
jurisdiction of this Court without availing of the said alternate
remedy. According to him, the detenu was acting in a
manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance
of public order, therefore, District Coordination Officer Lahore
was justified to issue the impugned detention order.
4. Arguments heard record perused. The detenu has
a remedy of filing representation before the Secretary to the
Government of the Punjab, Home Department, Lahore, under
the provisions of Punjab Maintenance of Public Order
Ordinance, 1960. The constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is
not meant to supersede and redundant the alternative
remedy already provided to a person under law. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Pakistan, did not approve invoking of the

W.P. No.11608/2011 4
constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by abandoning or
bypassing the statutory remedy without reasonable cause as
held in case titled “Wealth Tax Officer vs Shaukat Afzal and
others (1993 SCMR 1810). It has been held by the Full Bench of
this Court in the case of Sheikh Rashid Ahmad vs D.M
Rawalpindi etc (PLJ 2004 Lahore 1221 (FB), as under:-
“Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic
of Pakistan, 1973 provides an extraordinary
remedy to the aggrieved person of invoking the
Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court with the
underlying purpose to keep the administrative and
judicial authorities within the bounds of their
jurisdiction. When the law provides a remedy to
another authority fully competent to give relief,
any indulgence to the contrary by the High Court
is likely to produce a sense of distrust in those
authorities and to cast an undeserved reflection
on their integrity and competency and would
defeat the legislative intent.”
In view of the above preposition of law, it is not
deemed appropriate to allow direct entertainment of the writ
petition without availing the alternative remedy of preferring
representation before the Secretary to Government of the
Punjab, Home Department. For the reasons stated above, this
petition is dismissed. The petitioner/detenu may, if so desire,
prefer a representation before the Secretary to the
Government of the Punjab, Home Department, Lahore, in

W.P. No.11608/2011 5
*ZAHOOR*
accordance with law. If the said representation is filed, the
same shall be decided within a week positively from the date
of filing of the same.
Approved for reporting.
JUDGE
(ABDUL WAHEED KHAN)
JUDGE