Under the “Beggar Rehabilitation and Alternative Employment Programme” the Government engaged ten NGOs to participate in registering persons as beggars, and classifying them into different categories. These would classify people as beggars who are seasonal/irregular, occupational, women, children, aged 1-12, aged 12-50, elderly, and aged 50. These categories are clearly overlapping and the classification, therefore appears incoherent as the survey is to be conducted in a day which was not practically possible and seasonal beggars on various occasions, i.e. Shab –e- Barat, Eid –ul –Adha and during Monga period could not be taken in the list.
The High Court Division issued a rule on the Government seeking an explanation on the legality of the aforesaid programme. The Court also directed the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned notification dated 23.09. 2010 and the proceeding taken by the respondents for implementing the aforesaid programme should not be declared to have been issued without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect. And since the impugned notification has already been implemented partly, the prayer for passing an interim order of stay was not considered.
Mr. Justice Mirza Hossain Haider
Mr. Justice Muhammad Khurshid Alam
Constitution, Article 35(4)
Under the “Beggar Rehabilitation and Alternative Employment Programme” the Government engaged ten NGOs to participate in registering persons as beggars, and classifying them into different categories. These would classify people as beggars who are seasonal/irregular, occupational, women, children, aged 1-12, aged 12-50, elderly, and aged 50. These categories are clearly overlapping and the classification, therefore appears incoherent as the survey is to be conducted in a day which was not practically possible and seasonal beggars on various occasions, i.e. Shab –e- Barat, Eid –ul –Adha and during Monga period could not be taken in the list.
The High Court Division issued a rule on the Government seeking an explanation on the legality of the aforesaid programme. The Court also directed the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned notification dated 23.09. 2010 and the proceeding taken by the respondents for implementing the aforesaid programme should not be declared to have been issued without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect. And since the impugned notification has already been implemented partly, the prayer for passing an interim order of stay was not considered.
Mr. Justice Mirza Hossain Haider,
Mr. Justice Muhammad Khurshid Alam
Constitution, Article 35(4)