IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
C.P. No. D-3029
of 2016
______________________________________________________
Date Order with Signature of
Judge
___________________________________________________________
Before : Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Mr.
Justice Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui
Muhammad Yaseen and 09 others
...
..Petitioners
Versus
Chairman
PIDC Harnai Woolen Mill Ltd. and 06 others..
.Respondents
Date
of Hearing : 17.03.2017
Mr. Aminullah Kaker, advocate for the petitioners
O R D E R
.-.-.-.-.-.
FAHIM
AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: The petitioners have
filed instant petition in which they questioned the winding up proceedings of
Harnai Woolen Mill Ltd. According to them, the said mill was auctioned at a
cheaper rate while the petitioners and other inmates of Harnai are willing to
purchase the said mill at a better price. They also alleged that the said mill
is a national asset and Quaid-e-Azam founded the said mill and the same has also heritage
importance.
2.
At the very outset, this court had put the
counsel for the petitioners on notice to satisfy about the maintainability of
the petition. Instead of addressing the point of maintainability, the learned
counsel for the petitioners considered it better to seek remedy before the
learned Baluchistan High Court, as such this Court had passed the following
order on 31-05-2016:
Counsel for the petitioner states that
the petitioners have instructed him not to press this petition as they intend
to avail their purported remedy before the learned Baluchistan High Court.
Without touching the merits of the case especially with regard to the
maintainability of this petition, the petition is dismissed as not pressed
along with all pending applications."
3.
Now the petitioners have engaged another
counsel, who filed the instant application for recalling the above order. The
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that none of the
petitioners has given instructions to the former lawyer as such he was not
justified in giving a statement of not pressing the petition. He submits that
on the day of disposal, the petitioner No. 1 was present in the court, but he
could not understand the proceedings as it was in English. He submits that the
petitioners thought that there would be a further date of hearing but when they
came to know that the petition was dismissed as not pressed, they were surprised.
According to him, as the petitioners are
not sufficiently literate and they are laymen, therefore, a chance should be
given to them to proceed with the instant petition so that they may take part
in proceedings for its disposal on merits.
4.
We have given a patient hearing to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, who is continuously emphasizing for reopening the case. In
response to a query, the learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the
former advocate was appearing on behalf of the petitioners under a valid power
(Vakalatnama) as the petitioners duly engaged him in this matter. When we asked him to explain how the instant application
is maintainable especially when their previous lawyer had given a statement for
'not pressing' the petition; the learned counsel for the petitioners had no
reply.
5.
It is worth noting that when the petitioners'
advocate had given a statement of 'not pressing the petition', the petitioner
No. 1 was also present in the court. It is also worth noting that the
petitioners obtained the certified copy of the order mentioned above within a
few days of the dismissal order. The record shows that the application for
certified copy was filed on
the
very next day and certified copy was delivered within a few days. We are of the
view that in the existing circumstances of the case, the instant application is
devoid of merits, as such the same is dismissed with no order as to cost.
JUDGE
JUDGE