' Nazar Hussain Shah, Inspector and Muhammad Yar, S.I. are also in attendance and state that they have made hectic efforts but could not find any clue of the alleged detenus, being presently in the custody of Muhammad Yousaf respondent, who has proclaimed on oath in open Court that long ago the said persons had left him and had shifted to the place of Bhatti Brothers in the area of P.S. Sadar, Nankana. They had actually been instrumental in prompting the petitioner to make this complaint against the respondent. The alleged detenus have, left even the aforesaid `dera' and have shifted elsewhere.
2. Syed Muhammad Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid, Advocate has referred to a number of writ petitions and miscellaneous applications in the present nature, having been filed against different persons by Allah Ditta, as also his brother, Dost Muhammad, over the years. Allah Ditta's family members had remained for some time with Rana Phool Khan of Bhai Pheru late Provincial Minister. They have learnt the act of fleecing zamindars by taking up employment with them, securing amounts in advance or as loan and leaving them after having worked with them for some time. They continue drifting from place to place and have become exploiters of the worst order. With the blessings of certain miscreants they move in an organised manner and make a misuse of process of the Court.
They have now become perfect in the training imparted to them to invoke jurisdiction of this Court, available or not, by misrepresenting facts. Whenever there is a demand made by a zamindar about payment of outstanding dues, or when some sort of coercive measure is adopted for making them to abide by their monetary commitments, they resort to these devices. Unhesitatingly and very promptly they seek legal assistance for exploiting process of Court for furtherance of their nefarious designs.
3. According to the petitioner (para. 2 of the petition), as many as seven members of his family had been employed by the respondent for working in his fields. In para. 3, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Younas have been mentioned as having been detained by the respondent and subjected to inhuman treatment. Name of Muhammad Younas does not however, find mention in para.
2. He has instead been named as Muhammad Yasin. In the process issued by High Court Office requiring the S.H.O. to make recovery of the alleged detenus, mention of eight persons has been made in that context.
4. When asked as to why after all, he is sending his sons and grown-up daughters for doing labour, when they have always been maltreated by the agricultursits class, the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court. If his sons and daughters are that hard-working, he could get jobs for them in factories and not necessarily in fields. There is obviously no real compulsion for the petitioner to make his children work with zamindars; and he has not done it once; he has been changing the place of employment. It is not believable that all zamindars have been behaving alike and the petitioner's children have always met shabby treatment at the hands of their employers in the agricultural sector. If the Court allows itself to become a vehicle in the hands of such a crafty and cunning brand of litigants, who themselves have been practising blackmailing, in its worst form, it will amount to being unfair and unjust to those who so manifestly are exploited and flutter in sheer helplessness, when this Court comes to 'rescue' of the so-called oppressed class of destitute people, who have invented a novel way of securing protection for their men, who have been paid but do not want to work. They seek their 'release' from wrongful confinement of their employers, through process of the Court or aid of bailiffs, by making out a legal justification therefor, absolutely unwarranted and unjustified, more often than not.
5. So many persons akin to, else known to Bhatti Brothers, also happen to be in attendance. They vociferously maintain that the alleged detenus are either under tutelage of the petitioner himself or the adversaries of the respondent, and the petitioner is not ignorant about their whereabouts. I am wholly convinced that the averments made in the petition are no where nearer truth, and the purpose is not pious nor even bona fide; and I would, therefore, decline to afford to the petitioner the kind of 'legal assistance' he seeks, by pursuing an unusual course and invoking certain special or extraordinary, powers of this Court, in no clean manner, but in a 'polluted' way, similarly as he has been doing in the past. The petition, which smacks of bad faith, and has otherwise also no merit, is hereby dismissed, with special costs of Rs, 3,000.