1-10 Application update Bhagat Singh

The Tehrik-e-Hurmat-e-Rasool, a movement launched by the Jamaat-ud-Dawah, had filed the petition against a move by authorities to rename the roundabout.
Zahid Butt, a local trader who filed the petition on behalf of the organisation, claimed that RAW, India's external intelligence agency had funded the Bhagat Singh Foundation to raise the issue.
He claimed the Foundation lobbied the Dilkash Lahore Committee that recommended the renaming of the roundabout.
Senior JuD leader Maulana Amir Hamza, who heads the Tehrik-e-Hurmat-e-Rasool, has said the group will not allow places to be named after Hindus, Sikhs or Christians.
"Pakistan is a Muslim country and such ideas cannot be appreciated," he said recently.
The JuD wrote a strongly worded letter to district administration chief Noorul Amin Mengal and other government officials, warning them not to rename the roundabout after a "Hindu freedom fighter".
The Dilkash Lahore Committee had rejected all objections and asked authorities to notify the new name for the roundabout without delay.
In a related development, civil society activists have filed two applications in the Lahore High Court, asking it to make them parties to the case challenging the renaming of the roundabout.
Activists Taimur Rehman and Saeeda Diep filed the applications in the Lahore High Court yesterday through lawyer Yasser Latif Hamdani to support the renaming of the chowk after Bhagat Singh.

These applications were accepted.

Bhagat Singh Application 1-10 before Lahore High Court

The 1-10 application that LHC's writ branch has frivolously stopped from getting fixed tomorrow with the main case. 

BEFORE THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

CM___/2012

In

WP28446/2012

In re:

                                           Tahreek-e-Hurmat-e-Rasool versus CDGL etc

Diep Saeeda, wife of ___________,  resident of __________________________________                                                                                                            ……………………APPLICANT

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC ON BEHALF OF MS. DIEP SAEEDA TO BE IMPLEADED AS A PARTY IN THE PROCEEDINGS

Respectfully Sheweth:-

1. That titled writ petition is pending adjudication before this Honourable Court.
2. That the Applicant is a renowned peace and social activist who is filing the present application as a concerned resident of Lahore and a citizen of Pakistan and is both a necessary and a proper party because the issue affects all residents of Lahore and also citizens of Pakistan, as matters germane to the ideology and patriotism are involved, and because the Applicant wants to place on record certain important facts regarding the issue under litigation.
3. That the issue pertains to the renaming of Shadman Chowk as Bhagat Singh Chowk after Bhagat Singh, a renowned freedom fighter, who was hanged after a trial by the British authorities on 23 March, 1931. That a frivolous impression has been created by the Petitioner organization in the present case that the decision to rename the Shadman Chowk after the name of a great freedom fighter is somehow a conspiracy against Pakistan, whereas contrary to this claim, it is the position of the present Applicant that the renaming of Shadman Chowk after Bhagat Singh, a son of the soil, is a supreme act of patriotism.
4. That the Applicant submits that Pakistan is a Muslim majority country where all of us respect and cherish the Holy Prophet (PBUH). It is submitted that the petitioner organization, the objective of which is to safeguard the honour of our Holy Prophet (PBUH), has no locus standi in the present matter as Bhagat Singh, the freedom fighter, was known to hold no animosity towards Islam or our Holy Prophet (PBUH) and for the implication to contrary, the Petitioner may be put to strict proof by this Honourable Court. It is submitted that Bhagat Singh was a non-communal freedom fighter who stood for the independence of the subcontinent from British imperialism for all people of the subcontinent including Muslims.  Some of the finest Islamic scholars of the time including Maulana Hasrat Mohani, Obaidullah Sindhi and Zafar Ali Khan supported Bhagat Singh’s valiant struggle against the British rule. Many of Bhagat Singh’s closest associates were Muslims including Syed Haider Raza and even Bhagat Singh’s counsel was a Muslim, Asaf Ali, not to mention that Quaid-e-Azam  Muhammad Ali Jinnah also staunchly supported Bhagat Singh. Therefore on this ground of locus standi of the Petitioner organization alone the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. That the Applicant wants to place on record that Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was one of the loudest voices in support of Bhagat Singh in all of India, even appearing as a witness for the defence in the case against Bhagat Singh pertaining to the cracker bombs in the Indian Legislative Assembly.  It is further submitted that the Quaid-e-Azam on September 12 and September 14, 1929 delivered a scathing speech against the British Government and in particular the Punjab Government for its treatment of Bhagat Singh. It is submitted that the Quaid-e-Azam fully sympathized with the reasons and motivations behind Bhagat Singh’s actions and called him a patriot and man with a soul. This speech is part of the record of the collected works of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. It is submitted that after the Quaid’s brilliant oratory in support of Bhagat Singh, the question of renaming the chowk after Bhagat Singh being against the ideology of Pakistan does not arise.
6. That it may be pointed out that Bhagat Singh, though born in a Sikh family, had himself transcended community and was a revolutionary patriot.  It is submitted that Bhagat Singh was a staunch critic of communal politics of all kinds and was considered an opponent of the Congress Party. It is further submitted that Bhagat Singh contributions to the cause of freedom for all people of this region, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and others are made of sterling stuff and to appropriate him to one community or one nation of this subcontinent is unfortunate. It is submitted that Bhagat Singh was a son of the soil, a revolutionary and a freedom fighter who was from this region and who was hanged here, which is why Pakistan has a greater claim to Bhagat Singh than India.
7. That the Applicant is also incensed at the Petitioner’s suggestion that the Shadman Chowk be renamed after Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, who in his writings roundly abused and attacked Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, using language such as “quisling” and “traitor”. While it is true that Chaudhry Rehmat Ali came up with the name Pakistan but it is well known that Rehmat Ali distanced himself from the country that was founded at midnight of 14^th and        15^th of August, 1947, choosing instead to live out the rest of his life in Cambridge England and writing abusive tomes against Quaid-e-Azam and the Muslim League.
8. That CDGL’s decision to rename the chowk after Bhagat Singh is a case of legitimate exercise of executive authority which cannot be impugned as it is an executive decision and is certainly not anti-Pakistan or anti-Islam by any stretch of imagination.
9. That it is in interest of justice to implead the Applicant as a party to the present proceedings.

WHEREFORE it is prayed that this Honourable Court impleads the Applicant as both a necessary and proper party to the aforesaid writ petition.

                                                                                                            APPLICANT

through

                       (YASSER LATIF HAMDANI)

ADVOCATE HIGH COURT                                                    ADVOCATE HIGH COURT

PLH 44363                                                                                     PLH 42545

Useful case law on revisional jurisdiction of the High Courts Sec.115 of Civil Procedure Code

1.                  On Maintainability: An interim order which changes the nature and affects the rights of parties is covered within the scope of the phrase “Case Decided”

a.       2009 YLR 51 @ 55

b.      2006 SCMR  21 @ 23 and 24

c.       2007 MLD 177 @ 180 and 181

d.      PLD 1964 Lahore 101 @ 107 and 108

e.       AIR 1948 Nagpur 258

2.                   Lease:  Lease is a transfer of interest in property

a.       PLD 1964 SC 106 @ 110

b.      2005 CLD 1982 @ 1989

Under 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

c.       PLD 1969 Karachi 474

JURISDICTION OF SINDH AND LAHORE HIGH COURTS: A TIME LINE

·         Government of India Act 1915

o   Section 106 – Jurisdiction, original and appellate “subject to the provisions of any such letters patent , all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as are vested in those courts respectively  at the commencement of this act”.

o   Section 107 – Superintendence

o   Section 108-  Power to make rules and Chief Justice’s power to determine which judge to sit on which cases and what Division Benches to be constituted.

o   Section 113- The Rex aka Emperor of India through the British Government is empowered to create additional High Courts.

My Arguments before His Lordship Umar Ata Bandial in PTA-Blackberry Case 28.11.11

          In the Honourable Lahore High Court at Lahore

                             Yasser Latif Hamdani v. PTA and one other

______________________________________________________________________

Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973

______________________________________________________________________

ARGUMENTS

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

1. Article 19 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, reads :

Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, commission of or incitement to an offence.

Submission:

1. Possible restrictions on freedom of speech, constitutional or unconstitutional, may be divided into two categories : 

a.       Restraints on freedom of speech and expression prior to an exercise of the same.

b.      Restraints on freedom of speech and expression after the exercise of the same.

The narrowest view of freedom of speech and expression is that of William Blackstone. In his commentaries on freedom of expression, Sir William Blackstone took the view that the terms freedom of speech, expression and press were aimed at liberating the individual from fetters of the first kind. In chapter XI of his famed Commentaries on laws of England, Sir William lays down his view:

Changing terms of contract after public tender

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

1.      Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark European Court reports 1993 Page I-03353

      (Grand Chamber of the ECJ)

On Paras 34-45

34 In its reply the Commission based its claims on a series of provisions in the final version of the contract which, in its view, constituted amendments to the tender conditions and had some effect on prices. However, as was explained above (paragraphs 14 and 15), only the amendments relating to Condition 3, Clause 3, of the general conditions may be taken into consideration by the Court.