ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

C.P.NO.D-1790 OF 2011.

DATE                                      ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1. FOR ORDER ON OFFICE OBJECTION NO.2 A/W REPLY AS FLAGGED.

2. FOR KATCHA PESHI.

14.11.2012.

Mr. Mian Taj Muhammad Keerio, Advocate, holding brief for Mr. Ishrat Ali Lohar, Advocate, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar, State Counsel.

. . . .

            Learned State Counsel files statement on behalf of Respondent No.1, which is taken on record, copy whereof has been supplied to Mr. Keerio.

            Learned Counsel, holding brief for Mr. Ishrat Ali Lohar Advocate, says that he will be satisfied if direction is issued to the Respondents No.1 and 2 to act strictly in accordance with law and provide protection to the Petitioner as and when needed. He also says that official Respondents may be directed not to lodge false F.I.R. against the Petitioner.

            Learned State Counsel has no objection to the request made by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, he says that as and when any cognizable offence is reported to the police against the Petitioner, police shall act strictly in accordance with law.

            We have heard learned Counsel for both parties and perused the record. We feel that this petition can conveniently be disposed of by directing the official Respondents to act strictly in accordance with law and to provide legal protection as and when needed by the Petitioner. It is further directed that official Respondents shall not harass the Petitioner, however, as and when any cognizable offence is reported against the Petitioner police may take action strictly in accordance with law.

            Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

                                                                                                            JUDGE

                                                                             JUDGE