' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This criminal petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 12-10-1999 passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh at Sukkur in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,181 of 1991, dismissing the application of the petitioner and ordering him to pay Rs,5,000 to the respondent by way of token compensation for bringing the position of the respondent in disrepute and disrespect within 30 days from the date of the order.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that on 15-6-1999 the petitioner sent a telegram to various administrative authorities as well as to the Senior Judge of the High Court of Sindh at Sukkur Bench.
Stating therein that the WAPDA officials at Sukkur were not solving his electricity problem in spite of the order dated 10-6-1999 of the High Court of Sindh in Writ Petition No,D-705 of 1999 and that respondent Mir Azhar. Ali Talpur was corrupt S.D.O., WAPDA, Sukkur, who had got his son Imran arrested illegally and had insulted him without any rhyme and reason, and further that the respondent had threatened him that his son would be murdered through army authorities. He also alleged in his telegram that he has paid electricity charges bills about four months back, yet his meter has been taken away by the WAPDA Authorities and his electric supply has been disconnected. He demanded drastic action against the respondent SDO. The said telegram was converted into Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,181 of 1999 by the Sukkur Bench of the High Court of Sindh and notice was ordered to be issued to the officials of WAPDA including the respondent. Thereafter, High Court Bench appointed Mr. A.R. Bullo, Advocate as Commissioner with a direction to record the evidence of both the sides and submit his report within two weeks. The Commissioner submitted his report on 12-7-1999 and on the basis of its report the Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh at Sukkur passed the following order on 12-10-1999, which reads as under:- ' "We have gone through the report submitted by Mr. Abdul Rehman Bullo appointed as Commissioner by this Court in this petition, which was registered as C.P. On receipt of a telegram from petitioner Muhammad Naseer. Report of the Commissioner based on the evidence recorded by him and after repeated notices to the petitioner (who preferred to remain absent during the course of enquiry) clearly suggests that the complaint lodged by him with regard to detention and humiliation of his son Imran by respondent Mir Azhar Ali Talpur, S.D.O.-I, Sukkur is unfounded. He furthermore concluded that the petitioner in order to save his own skin and to avoid the payment of outstanding bill in the name of his son Imran worth Rs,43,951 and to escape the action by Military Personnel demoralised the respondent by falsely initiating petition in the name of his son Imran.
The report further suggests that a copy of the report was delivered t. Mr. G.M. Khan Durrani, Advocate for respondent as well as deposited in the office of Addl. A.-G., to whom notice was issued by the Court. Obviously petitioner having clearly avoided to appear before the Commissioner despite repeated notices by registered post A.D. As well as through courier service copy of report could not be endorsed to him. Indeed there is no good reason to disbelieve the report of the Commissioner which report is apparently independent and impartial.
2. In view of this report the petition stands dismissed with special costs of Rs,5,000 which shall be paid by the petitioner to respondent Mir Azhar Ali Talpur by way of token compensation for bringing his position in disrepute and disrespect within 30 days from today."
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order, the report of the Commissioner and other Annexures filed by the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Sukkur Bench of the High Court of Sindh has dismissed the complaint .Without appreciating its contents and that the Commissioner has failed to record the statement of the petitioner and further the High Court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the criminal miscellaneous application and to impose special costs of Rs,5,000 upon the petitioner.
4. We do not find any substance in the contention. The Commissioner in his report dated 2-7-1999 has stated that he had issued notices to the petitioner from time to time for his appearance before him and for recording his evidence but the petitioner deliberately avoided to appear and produce his evidence. The Commissioner recorded the statements of Mir Azhar Ali Talpur, S.D.O.-I (HESCO), Sukkur, Aftab Mehmood Khan, Revenue Officer (HESCO), Sukkur, Juman shah, S.D.O. Sub-Division No,1 (HESCO), Sukkur, Jaweed Solangi, a consumer, Nazir Ahmed Shaikh, LS-I, Muhammad Saeed, ALM, Muhammad Bashir, LM-I, Badrul Islam, LS-2, Ibadatullah, Meter Reader, Mr. Muhammad Ismail, Line Superintendent, and others. No evidence, whatsoever, was produced by the petitioner with the result that the evidence produced by the WAPDA officials remained unrebutted. In the circumstances, the Commissioner observed:-- ' "While recording the statements of the above witnesses and examining them at length in person I am of the considered view that the applicant Muhammad Naseer in order to save his own skin and avoid the payment of huge amount of outstanding bill in the name of his son Imran worth Rs,43,951 and escape the action by Military Personnel, disgraced and demoralised the respondent and filed the Constitutional petition bearing No,705 of 1999 in the name of his son Imran and dropped telegram which was converted in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No, 181 of 1999."
A perusal of the impugned order and the report of the Commissioner would show that the High Court has rightly dismissed the criminal miscellaneous application of the petitioner who had filed the same with ulterior and mala fide motives so as to malign the WAPDA Authorities and to avoid the payment of huge outstanding electricity charges and to evade military action against him being said to be defaulter in respect of electric charges. In the circusmtances, High Court was quite competent to impose special costs as the petitioner, with a mala fide intent, made false and frivolous complaint against the respondent and moved the machinery of the High Court in bad faith for taking action against the respondent. Reference may be made to Khurshid Ahmad Naz Faridi v. Bashir Ahmed (1993 SCM R 639) wherein the relevant portion reads as under:- ' "The object of granting such costs may be two-fold. One to compensate the aggrieved party who in successful assertion/defence of his right, has been put to unnecessary litigation and harassm ent. The other object is to penalise a party who may have initiated any action or passed the order in complete disregard of the obvious and glaang facts and provisions of law which a reasonable person would not do unless he acts with highhandedness, arbitrarily, mala fide or ulterior motive. Where a person acting in his official capacity in complete disregard of the clear records and documents and having no authority to pass order of a particular nature, passes such an order, then while setting aside such order the Court awards cost to be paid by him personally, it will be proper exercise of discretion. But such discretion is based on facts and circumstances of the case and conduct of parties. As the order granting costs is discretionary, it should not be fanciful, arbitrary, whimsical or capricious. Such discretion is exercised with regard to the party that will be charged with costs, the amount and the manner in which costs are to be paid."
' In this context reference may also be made to Arwinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P. And others (AIR 1995 SC 11'7) wherein following passage appears:- ' "We cannot but express our strong displeasure and disapproval of concerned police officers. The State of Uttar Pardesh will take immediate steps to launch prosecution against all the police officers involved in this sordid affair. The State shall pay a compensation of Rs,10,000 to Nidhi, Rs,10,000 to Charanjit Singh Bagga and Rs, 5,000 to each of other persons who were illegally detained and humiliated for no fault of their. Upon such payment it will be open to the State to recover personally the amount of compensation from the concerned police officers."
' Reference may also be made to Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar (AIR 1983 SC 1086), Bhim Singh Mila v.
State of Jammu and Kashmir (AIR 1986 SC 494) and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 1086).
Accordingly, we find no substance in this petition and dismiss it.