' This first appeal under Section 46 of the Mental Healt Ordinance, 2001 is directed against order dated 22.9.2014 passed b learned District Judge Lahore.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details brief facts important for the decision of this appeal are that learned Court of Protection taking proceedings on a petition under Sections 32 & 33 of the Mental Health Ordinance 2001 vide order dated 29.5.2014 appointed the appellant as guardian and manager of her lunatic/mentally disordered daughter namely Zainab Bandey subject to furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs. 500,000,00/- to the satisfaction of the said Court within one month. The appellant being dis-satisfied with the order of surety assailed the same before this Court through FAO No. 438-2014 with the following prayers:-- "In view of the foregoing it is respectfully prayed that the impugned order dated 29.05.2014 may kindly be modified and the demand of surety of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- may kindly be dispensed with.
' It is further-prayed that Respondent No. 2 may graciously be directed to issue certificate of guardianship and manager of property on furnishing of personal guarantee by appellant, in best interest of justice.
' Further in the given circumstances, any other relief which this Honourable Court deem fit and appropriate may also be granted."
' The said FAO was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.7.2014 in the following manner:-- "After arguing the case at some length, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to an agreement which has been arrived at between the legal heirs of the deceased, according to which, an amount of Rs. 27,500,000/- is to be paid to the patient (Mst. Zainab Bandey). In this view of the fact, learned counsel contends that the amount of surety which has been asked by the Court of Protection should be reconsidered.
2. Keeping in view the above development, learned counsel is directed to approach the Court of Protection highlighting the subsequent event so that the amount of surety can be rate ably reduced. With these observations, this appeal is disposed of."
' In view of the direction of this Court the learned Court of Protection reduced the surety amount to the tune of Rs. 27,500,000/-through order dated 04.9.2014 as under:-- "2. Learned counsel submits that mentally disable girl will inherit her share from the assets left by her deceased father, being one of his legal heirs and the matter is pending before Civil Court, Lahore. Further submits that all the legal heirs have decided to settle their dispute amicable and have entered into a compromise, by dint of which the share of mentally disable girl comes to Rs.
2,75,00,000/- two crores and seventy five lacs). Learned counsel prays that amount of surety may be reduced to the extent of share of mentally retarded girl.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the available record.
4. The petitioner has also placed on record copy of agreement arrived at between legal heirs of Tariq Badar-ud-Din Banday, This Court, being the Court of Protection, has to safeguard the rights and interest of mentally disable girl to the extent of her share. Even otherwise, none has turn up to refute the claim of the petitioner, hence, the application is accepted and petitioner is directed to submit surety bond to the tune of Rs. 2,75,00,000/- (two crores and seventy five lacs) within one month, in terms of order dated 29.05.2014 of passed by this Court. This order shall be read as integral part of order dated 29.05.2014 of this Court."
' The appellant submitted the surety bond before the Court of Protection on 22.9.2014 which was declined through impugned order dated 22.9.2014 in the following manner:-- "2. The petitioner has submitted surety bond, which reveals that one 'Sardar Muhammad Hasam- ud-Din Khosa intends to stand as surety for the petitioner. Although the surety has shown his address of Lahore yet the property of the proposed surety stands located in Dera Ghazi Khan. The petitioner is resident of Lahore and all the movables and immovable, except one plot, left by deceased father of mentally retarded girl, stand located in Lahore and none of those properties falls within the bounds of District Dera Ghazi Khan. To safeguard the rights of mentally disable girl, it is not safe and proper to allow instant surety, which is hereby declined. Original surety bond be returned to petitioner and its copy be retained on the main file. However, the petitioner may submit fresh local surety."
4. Right to life and property is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 4, 9 & 23 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. Preamble of the Mental Health Ordinance 2001 clearly manifests the spirit of its legislation i.e. 'to consolidate and amend the law relating to the mentally disordered persons with respect to their care and treatment, management of their property and other related matters'. The Court constituted under the Ordinance (ibid) is defined as Court of Protection under Section 2(d) which reads below:-- "Court of Protection" means a District Court having jurisdiction under this Ordinance in matters specified herein and designated as such by the Government."
' A Court performing its functions under the Ordinance therefore is obliged to protect the rights of a mentally disordered person in accordance with law.
5. There is no cavil to the proposition that petitioner is bound to furnish the surety bond to the satisfaction of the Court of Protection in terms of order dated 29.5.2014 as modified vide order dated 04.9.2014. The vires of order dated 04.9.2014 were never challenged by the petitioner.
Needless to say that the expression 'satisfaction of the Court' clearly manifests that the surety should be adequate and acceptable to the Court. In the impugned order the Court of Protection being conscious of its duty to safeguard the rights of mentally disordered girl and exercising its discretion in appropriate and judicious manner has clearly expressed his reservation with regard to the propriety and suitability of the surety and thus declined to accept the same. I have no reason to take any exception to the findings of the learned Court of Protection.
6. For the above reasons I do not find any jurisdictional error, factual or legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned Court of Protection. This appeal therefore having no merit is dismissed in limine.