KARACHI, May 15: A judge of the Sindh High Court, on Wednesday, expressed dismay over the manner in which inmates of Bhopal House at Clifton were forcibly evicted, allegedly at the behest of the Intelligence Bureau.

“What was the hurry to do all this in such a manner a day before the Soyem. There is something called humanitarian consideration. You could have gotten the property in due course, if it was proved that it is yours,” observed Justice Zahid Kurban Alavi, when the question of eviction from Bhopal House came up against the concerned authorities in a contempt of court proceeding.

Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, who appeared for the former Foreign Secretary, Shahryar M. Khan, the only son of the late Begum Abida Sultaan, whose Soyem was held today, vehemently deplored the blatant use of force by the authorities against the inmates of Bhopal House on Tuesday, despite court order and undertaking given to the court by the respondents.

He argued that the respondents had committed yet another contempt and that he planned to file yet another contempt application.

“They came along with a strong police force and in spite of objections, forcibly threw out the inmates from Bhopal House. This action was taken in spite of the court’s order which prohibited the defendants from taking such an action,” submitted Mr Pirzada.

He deplored the action a day before the Soyem of Begum Abida Sultaan. When he pleaded for calling all the contemners, the IB personnel, who were present in sizable number, slipped away and left the Executive Engineer of the PWD to face the court, in the presence of Amir Hani Muslim, the DAG.

Mohammad Mushtaq, Executive Engineer, PWD, (Defendant No 3) who was present in the court, submitted that he had received instructions from the Federal Law and Housing and Works ministries.

The contemner further submitted that he was fully aware that there might be a possible contempt to which he was given assurance by the competent authority to defend him.

There was a court ruling that a government servant was not bound to follow the illegal orders of his superiors.

He said that the property had been taken over by the PWD and handed over to the IB.

Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, while disputing the contention, said that the lady magistrate, who had earlier refused to sign the order, argued that she was coerced to sign the documents later.

The matter was adjourned to May 21. Amir Hani Muslim, DAG, was also present.

There was an earlier contempt application which was filed on behalf of the late Begum Abida Sultaan under Article 204 of the constitution in the pending suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the year 1995, in which Defendant No 3, (Executive Engineer, PWD) was also arrayed as a party. The plaintiff had claimed ownership of the suit property and was admittedly in possession thereof.

It was her contention that her application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 came up for hearing before this court, it issued an ad interim ex-parte order directing maintenance of status quo. Evidently, this order was passed to restrain the defendants, including the contemner, from taking possession of the suit property.

The said ad-interim ex-parte order remained in force until Sept 21, 1998, and was duly obeyed by the defendants, including the contemner.

On that date, the application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for grant of temporary injunction, came up before the court in the presence of the advocate for the plaintiff — Mamnoon Hassan, Deputy Attorney General — representing Defendant No 1 and Mohammad Fazil, advocate, representing Defendant Nos 2 and 3 (including the contemner).

On that date, categoric undertaking was given on behalf of the defendants, including the contemner, by the DAG and Mohammad Fazil, advocate, that the plaintiff shall not be dispossessed from the property, except under the due process of law.

In view of the said undertaking, the counsel for the plaintiff did not press the application, which was disposed of accordingly in terms of the statement of the two counsels for the defendants.

Since then, four years have elapsed and the defendants abided by their undertaking.

The suit had proceeded in accordance with the due process of law, but was still sub judice and therefore the undertaking was binding on the defendants and its breach shall be tantamount to gross and contumacious contempt of this court.

According to the plaintiff, all of a sudden, on May 6, Defendant No 3, issued a notice to the Begum Abida Sultaan, purporting to be under Section 5(1) of the Federal Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1965, alleging that the plaintiff was in illegal possession of Plot No 25 (the suit property), Bhopal House, and must vacate the same within seven days from the date of issuance of the said letter, failing which the same shall be gotten vacated through law enforcement agencies. The notice was issued when the plaintiff was in a coma.

It was contended by the plaintiff that the aforesaid letter by Defendant No 3, the contemner, was contumacious, defiant and in total disrespect and disregard of the undertaking given to this court and was tantamount to interference with the administration of justice and due process of law; Defendant No 3 was a party to the suit and it had given undertaking as far back as Sept 21, 1998, which was being acted upon until the notice dated May 6, and was maliciously and unlawfully issued.

It was reiterated that the plaintiff had good title to the property and was in possession of all the relevant and material documents, such as mutation documents and documents of sale.

Hence, the provisions of the law referred to in the notice were not applicable unless this court had rejected the plaintiff’s prayer on the disposal of the suit.

Under Article 204 of the constitution, a violation of unqualified undertaking given to the court allowed certain course of action, amounted to a contempt of court. Defendant No 3, by violating this court order, had now committed gross contempt of court.

This application was made as a matter of urgency as unless this court took contempt proceedings against the Defendant No 3, the plaintiff might suffer the risk and harm of being evicted from the premises on Monday, May 13, in gross violation of the undertaking.

A reply to the notice was sent to the contemner, giving him the opportunity to purge himself of the contempt, but to no effect.

The plaintiff had prayed for initiating contempt proceedings and issue contempt notice to Defendant No 3, namely, Executive Engineer, Karachi Central Civil Division No. IV. Pak PWD, Karachi, for violating and breaking the undertaking given to and order of the court, dated Sept 21, 1998. It was further prayed that the contemner be punished and detained in prison for circumventing and flouting the aforesaid undertaking order of this court and subverting and interfering with the due process of law and administration of justice.

The interim orders, including revival of the court order dated Aug 3, 1995, be passed for the relief of the plaintiff, so as to prevent any illegal or malicious action being taken against her.

In an earlier hearing, Abdul Aziz Memon was appointed as commissioner to record the evidence and return it to the commission within three months. This was possible after Amir Hani Muslim, DAG, had stated that he would have no objection to the appointment of commissioner for recording of evidence subject, however, to the condition that the fee of the commissioner was paid by the plaintiff.