Athar Minallah, C.J. The petitioner , Naeem Haider Panjutha , is an enrolled advocate. He has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court seeking a writ directing the Federal Government to refrain from issuing a diplomatic passport in favour of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. The learned counsel has argued that the latter was convicted and has been declared as an absconder by a competent court and, therefore, an extraordinary benefit/facilitation cannot be extended by the State.
2. In response to the Court's query, the learned counsel has referred to various reports published in daily newspapers to show that the Federal Government has decided to issue a diplomatic passport in favour of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. However , the learned counsel could not show any order , direction or notification issued by the Federal Government in this regard.
3. It is noted that no evidentiary value is attached to the press reports and no reliance can be placed on it when a person claims a legal right on its basis. It is settled law that courts do not decide cases on the basis of press reports. Reliance is placed on the "Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others" [PLD 2004 SC 583].
Moreover, the law regarding how a convicted person, declared as an absconder by a competent court, is to be dealt with has been enunciated by the august Supreme Court in the judgments reported as "Hayat Bakhsh and others v. The State" [PLD 1981 SC 265] and "The State through National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad v. Haji Nasim-ur-Rehman" [PLD 2005 SC 270]. It is obligatory on a convicted person who has been declared as an absconder to surrender to the order of imprisonment. An absconder, therefore, has to be dealt with in accordance with law.
4. The Court has no reason to doubt that the Federal Government would act or pass an order or direction which may be in derogation to the principles and law enunciated by the august Supreme Court, inter alia, highlighted in the aforementioned judgments.
5. For the above reasons, the petition is based on unreliable material and is, therefore, frivolous. The petition is dismissed in limine and an amount of Rs.5000/- is imposed as costs on the petitioner . The cost is ordered to be deposited with the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of the Court within fifteen days from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order . The amount shall thereafter be deposited in the account maintained for payment of fee to counsels engaged at State expense.