Notices issued on freewill couple’s plea against harassment
KARACHI: The Sindh High Court on Thursday issued notices to the home secretary, the town police officer of Bin Qasim and other respondents in the petition of a freewill marriage couple seeking the quashment of a criminal case.
Petitioners Shahida and Imran Ali submitted that they were residents of Quaidabad and had married after the woman executed a freewill certificate before a first-class magistrate on June 30.
But the woman’s parents, opposed to the marriage, lodged a case (FIR 479/10) under Section 496-A (enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman) of the Pakistan Penal Code at the Shah Latif Town police station against Imran and his relatives, and the complainant party as well as the police were harassing them.
They requested the court to quash the case and bar the police from arresting Imran and his relatives.
The petitioners impleaded the home secretary, the Bin Qasim TPO, the SHO and the SIO of the Shah Latif Town police station and the woman’s father and others relatives as respondents.
The division bench of the SHC comprising acting Chief Justice Mushir Alam and Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar put the respondents and the advocate-general on notice for a date to be fixed by the court office, and directed the respondents to refrain from harassing the couple.
Lecturer’s transfer case
The same bench put the Sindh chief secretary, education secretary and others on notice on a petition challenging the transfer order of a lecturer.
Petitioner Manzoor Ahmed Solangi stated that he was an assistant professor at the Aisha Bawani Science College Karachi and on June 9 in a television talk show he criticised the authorities for thrashing the teachers who were staging a protest demonstration in support of their demands outside the GovernorÂ’s House on May 25. Consequently, Education Minister Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq through his public relations officer asked him either to submit an apology or face “consequences”, he added.
The petitioner further submitted that later “at the behest of the education minister” he was transferred and told to report to the education secretary. He was also served an explanation letter, asking him to submit a reply to it, and warning him that in case of failure to do so he would be dismissed from service under the Removal from Service Ordinance 2000.
He contended that the notification of his transfer was unlawful as it was issued by the education secretary on the directives of the minister. Besides, the secretary was not the competent authority to issue such a notification.
He pleaded that his transfer order be declared illegal.