' SAAD SAOOD JAN, ACTG. C.J.---This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment dated 31-7-1993 of the Lahore High Court, whereby it not only dismissed the Constitution petition of the petitioner but also burdened him with special costs of Rs,3,000.
2. The petitioner filed a petition in the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. He alleged that he and the other members of his family, including his sons, Amin and Yasin, hereinafter referred to as the alleged detenus, and daughters, were employed by the respondent as agricultural workers against an advance of Rs,30,000. They were subjected to the most inhumane treatment and for that reason they left his employment about two years ago. However, the respondent forcibly detained the alleged detenus and was now demanding Rs,1,00,000 for their release. He prayed that the Court should depute the bailiff to recover the alleged detenus from the illegal custody of the respondent and produce them before the Court. He also prayed that the action be taken against the respondent under section 11, Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992, and the first information report he got registered for the forcible detention of the alleged detenus as it constituted serious offences under the Pakistan Penal Code.
3. Instead of deputing a bailiff for the recovery of the alleged detenus a learned Single Judge in the High Court issued notices to the respondent as well as the local police officers. The local police officers were unable to recover the alleged detenus from the Dera of the respondent. On their part the respondent took the position that the alleged detenus had left his Dera and shifted elsewhere and that the petitioner was wont to "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". The learned Single Judge was impressed with the version of the respondent; accordingly, he not only dismissed the petition but also burdened the petitioner with special costs.
4. When this petition came up for hearing before us the petitioner still insisted that his two sons, that is, the alleged detenus were still under the illegal detention of the respondent. To satisfy ourselves in this regard we deputed an officer of this Court (Mr. Muhammad Shafi) to accompany the petitioner alongwith the police officer who was present in the Court to the village of the respondent and search out the alleged detenus at the place/s that might be pointed out by the petitioner. After his return from the village of the respondent the bailiff reported that he had not been able to find the alleged detenus at the places pointed out by the petitioner. In the circumstances, this petition in so far as it relates to the recovery of the alleged detenus is concerned, cannot proceed any further. However, this will not prevent the petitioner from once again seeking relief from the appropriate Court if he is able to locate the place of detention of the alleged detenus.
5. While disposing of the petition the learned Single Judge has made observations of general nature. These observations should be considered as relevant only to the case before him. These would not stand in the way of the petitioner from making a further application for the recovery of his sons.
6. As regards the imposition of special costs upon the petitioner we consider that the order of the learned Single Judge was not justified. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the State.
He too is unable to support this part of the learned Judge's order. Accordingly, we convert this petition into appeal and set aside the order with regard to the imposition of costs.