CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.-- The detenu secured two loans amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- against account No. Y-838 in the year .1995 and also secured loan amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- against account No. N- 660 in the year 1995 from the respondents. Agreements were also executed between the detenu and the respondents. According to the terms and conditions of the agreements, the detenu had to repay the loans to the respondent in easy instalments. The learned counsel of the detenu submits that detenu had repaid Rs.240835/- and. Rs.1,79,000/- respectively. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner find W.P. No. 2738/2002 before this Court which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 15.2.2002 and copy of the writ petition was sent to respondent No. 2 who was directed to consider the request of the petitioner to discharge his liabilities in easy instalments and in the interest of the respondent/ corporation and to save the family of the petitioner from destruction. Respondent No. 2 was also directed to consider the case of the petitioner under the incentive schemes issued by the respondents of and on, in case, the case of the petitioner falls within the parameters of the incentive schemes then benefit of the incentive schemes be given to the petitioner by the respondents. The respondents were restrained to take any action against the petitioner till 27.4.2002. The petitioner allegedly approached the respondent No. 2 on 16.2.2002 but the respondents failed to redress the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved find criminal original No. 213/W/2002 in which the respondents were directed to file reply of the petition. The respondents mala finely arrested the petitioner and detained him in Judicial Lock-up without any justification in violation of the directions of this Court.
2. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that petitioner had repaid Rs.1,65,377/- against loan secured by the detenu against account No. No-660; whereas the detenu had repaid Rs.1,50,000/- against the loan secured by the detenu against account No. Y-838, The outstanding against the detenu is Rs.3,75,458/- till 31.12.2001 against account No. N-660 whereas Rs.61812/- against account No. Y-838 till 31.12.2001. He further submits that the detenu secured order from this Court in the aforesaid writ petition by concealing the material facts. Demand was created by the respondents against the petitioner on 1 7.7'.2000 and directed the petitioner to repay the outstanding of the respondent/corporation amounting to Rs.437,270/-. He further submits that respondents have taken action against the detenu as is evident from the proceedings initiated by the respondents against the detenu, notice under Sections 81 and 82 were issued against the detenu on 11.2.2002 and 13.2.2002 with a direction to repay Rs.3,75,458/- and. Rs. 110000/- till 12.3.2002. Notice was duly supported by the certificate issued by the competent authority in this regard. Thereafter the detenu failed to discharge his liabilities in terms of the notice and warrant of arrest of detenu was issued by the competent authority on 11.2.2002. Detenu was arrested by the competent authority on 13.2.2002. The revenue officer sent the detenu in Judicial Lock-up for 7 days vide order dated. 16.2.2002 thereafter the Collector extended the period of detention of detenu for 30 days vide order dated 21.2.2002. He further submits that detenu concealed the aforesaid material facts from the contents of the writ petition find by the petitioner before Zameer Hussain Shah V. S.B.F. Corpration. Z.M. Rev. C. 117 (Ch. Ejaz Ahmad, J.) this Court and secured the aforesaid order. He further raised a preliminary objection that detenu has alternative remedy under the law therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. He summed-up his arguments that the detenu was detained by the competent authority after completing. All the legal formalities.
7. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that respondents had initiated proceedings against the detenu without any justification. He further submits that respondents could not initiate proceedings against the detenu unless and until the recovery of the amount was determined by the respondents. He further urges that action of the respondents is in violation of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. He further submits that respondents arrested the petitioner on 16.2.2002 and did not arrest the petitioner on 13.2.2002.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
9. The writ petition is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in W.P. No. 7156/2001 and Crl. Misc. No. 711-H/2001 for the reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgment of this Court, this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the detenu has alternative remedy before the higher authorities under the provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. I am not in a position to deviate from my own view on the well-known principle of consistency as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Muzaffar Khan's, case (PLD 1959 S.C. 9).
However, in the interest of justice and Fairplay, respondents are directed to release the detenu after receiving Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner. After the release, the detenu is directed to appear before the Manager of the respondents who is directed to consider the request of the detenu to discharge his liabilities in easy instalments in the interest of the Corporation and to save the family from destruction. The Manager of the Corporation is also directed to consider the request of the detenu under the incentive schemes issued by the respondents, In case, his case falls within the four corners of the aforesaid schemes, then he is directed to give him benefit in accordance with law under the incentive schemes.
10. It is settled principle of law that this Court has to see at the time of deciding the habeas corpus petition whether the detention of the detenu is legal or not, as per principle laid down by the Peshawar High Court in the case of "Qadir and others v. The State" (PL.D 1958 (W.P.) Pesh. 38). It is also settled principle of law that legally, the proceedings qua habeas corpus petition, are summary in character as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Nasir Muhammad's case (PLD 1997 S.C. 852) and this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of facts in Habeas Corpus petition, It is also settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction-under Section 491 of Cr.P.C, and Article 199 of the Constitution to grant relief to the detenu in respect of the allegations of wrongful detention or any allegation of torture or some other inhuman act committed on his person. This however, does not mean that such person has no remedy in law for every wrong, there is a remedy of every injury-to a person. He can claim damages in the form of compensation. Wrongful detention is also an offence under P.P.C and if the police is reluctant to register a case or investigate it, the complainant may file a complaint direct to the Magistrate. If only persons in Pakistan were to become conscious of their rights under law, and enforce their claims for damages for wrongful detentions under the law of Torts against Police Officers or recovery officers guilty of such highhandedness and illegal acts, the reign of terror let loose by their will, to a great extent, come under control. They indulge in these activities without compunction, because they fear no harm. This Court has only jurisdiction under Section 491, Cr.P.C, or under Article 199 of the Constitution in case the detention is illegal then this Court has only power to release the detenu! It is settled principle of law that official acts are presumed to be correct. The respondents counsel has produced the original record which shows that warrant of arrest of the detenu was issued on 11.2.2002 and the detenu was arrested on 13.2.2002. The detenu find Writ Petition No. 2738/2002 before this Court and secured an order from this Court on 15.2.2002 by concealing the material facts from this Court, therefore, I am constrained to withdraw the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition No. 2738/2002, dated 15.2.2002. .Consequently the Crl. Orgl.
No. 213/W/2002 find by the detenu is dismissed. Office is directed to place the copy of this Order in Writ Petition No. 2738/2002 and Crl. Orgl. No. 213-W/2002.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.