HYDERABAD, Feb 28: A division bench of Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit, here on Thursday, has fixed March 6 for hearing a constitutional petition of a labour leader Qamoos Gul Khattak, praying to declare the order of his expulsion from Dadu unlawful and illegal after his counsel sought time to argue the case.
The district magistrate Dadu on Sept 4, 1996 passed an order, expelling the petitioner from Dadu district on different grounds.
The counsel of the petitioner, who had remained president of Lakhra Coal Mines Union, claimed in the petition that his client’s popularity and reputation had earned him ill will and malice of some people who tried to form a parallel group against him. .
An intimation was given to then deputy commissioner Dadu, apprehending law and order situation on Sept 7, 1996 but no action was taken against the persons from whom there was apprehension of disturbances.
These people invited the Balochistan law minister Abdul Qahar Wadan on Aug 23, 1996, saying that a warm welcome would be given to him at the coal mines but when the minister reached there few people received him.
Some of the miscreants in order to camouflage their failure resorted to firing.
The counsel argued in the petition that the minister was misguided and a case was lodged against the miscreants who were shown to have been instigated by the petitioner for firing.
The petitioner submitted surety before the civil judge and first class magistrate to whom the chargesheet was presented.
Mr Khatak stated that the minister pressurized the Sindh government for taking action against him with the result that the DC, Dadu, passed an order under Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (MPO) 1960 restricting his entry in Dadu district for 60 days.
The petitioner argued that the order was based on erroneous assumption of facts and extraneous circumstances as it suffered from inherent infirmities which could not be ignored.
The grounds mentioned in the order were of general nature and they did not specify details regarding time and place of occurrence of incident.
The counsel pointed out that no material was shown which could form basis for passing such hasty order.
The order also came in sharp contrast to articles 4, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 25 of the constitution which guaranteed freedom of expression, speech and movement anywhere in the country, the council added.
He argued that allegations in the order were unfounded, prejudicial and levelled with malafide intention because the petitioner had not resorted to the use of force against anyone.
He referred to rulings of superior courts that registration of criminal case would not be reason or ground for passing order under section 5(i)(a)(c) of the MPO 1960.
He prayed the court to declare the said order unlawful and without legal effect and grant compensation for damaging the reputation of petitioner in Rs2.5 million.
He also sought cost of petition at Rs100,000.
AAG, Sindh, Masood A. Noorani stated before the court that he was ready to argue the case but petitioner’s counsel sought more time.