ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

HYDERABAD.

C.P.No.S- 782  of   2015

DATE       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

21.10.2015.

          Mr. Ghulam Nabi Meo, Advocate for petitioner.

          Mr. Mansoor Ahmed Khan, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 8.

          Mr. Ashfaque Nabi Kazi, Assistant A.G.

                   =

          Instant Constitution Petition is filed by the petitioner Habib Ahmed against the respondents and prayed for following relief (s):-

“i)      Direct the respondents No.1 & 2 not to cause harassment to the petitioners, and family members and the relatives of the petitioner on instance of respondents No.3 to 8 and restrain them from interfering in the peaceful possession of Hotel.

ii)      Direct the respondent No.2 not to misuse his powers and colors and the respondent No.1 be directed to provide the protection to the petitioner and his family members and save him from the clutches of respondents No.3 to 8.”

          Notices were issued to the respondents as well as A.A.G. Comments filed by respondents No.1 and 2 and Muhammad Hanif. In the comments filed by respondent Muhammad Hanif, he as stated that petitioner is his nephew and his father has expired. There is dispute over the Hotel between petitioner and private respondents. Hotel belongs to Town Committee Dhoronaro. Respondent Muhammad Hanif claims that it was leased out to him and father of the petitioner. Official respondents in their comments have stated that there is dispute between the parties over Hotel/shop and SHO PS Dhoronaro has never caused any harassment to the petitioner. SSP Umerkot has stated that legal protection shall be provided to the petitioner if and when needed. Learned A.A.G. undertakes that official respondents shall act strictly in accordance with law.

          In view of the above statements/comments and undertaking of learned A.A.G, the petition is disposed of with direction to the official respondents to act strictly in accordance with law. As regards to the dispute between the petitioner and private respondents over the Hotel is concerned, the parties would be at liberty to approach the competent Court of law for adjudication of such dispute.

                                                                             JUDGE

Tufail