President Pakistan Justice Democratic Critic Party, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary. PHOTO: PID/FILE
Among the nine reasons listed, the division bench comprising Justice Noorul Haq N Qureshi and Justice Aamer Farooq noted that the relief was granted against appellants who were not parties cited in the array of respondents and were not asked to submit comments at a later stage.
Bulletproof car case: Government may withdraw Chaudhry's free ride
While allowing the federal government’s intra-court appeal (ICA) for reclaiming the car from the judge-turned-politician, the court sent the case back to the single bench of Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui with directions to decide afresh “after considering the legal and factual aspects”.
The division bench stated that notices to appear were not issued to any of the parties cited in the titles of the list. “Only certain directions were issued instead of inviting them to submit comments or respective replies,” it read.
In addition, the bench noted that questions regarding legal standing of the petitioners were not examined, and that “relief was granted without referring to any provision of law”.
Moreover, the verdict stated that the single-judge-in-chambers merely endorsed the order passed by the prime minister and did not apply an independent mind by disposing of the petition. Furthermore, the court said that the judgment lacked comments or legal and factual questions by the appellant or any other party necessary to the proceedings.
Ex-CJP's bullet proof car: Law ministry asks AGP to approach SC
The order also notes that the appellants, as necessary parties in the original proceedings, should have been impleaded by filing an amended memo of petition. “Many legal and factual questions raised in the ICA could have been raised [earlier] if a proper opportunity [were] granted by the learned single-judge-in-chambers while hearing the writ petition,” it added.
While observing all the legal and factual weaknesses, the bench said that questions necessary for settling the “controversy” were not properly addressed. Subsequently, the division bench said that these were sufficient grounds for remanding the case back to Justice Siddiqui.
Case history
Though the former CJP himself had not directly requested security, his newly-established political party’s spokesperson Sheikh Ahsanuddin and another lawyer, Taufiq Asif — in their personal capacities —filed the petition in 2014 that led to the issuance of a bulletproof car to the former judge.
In January 2014, Justice Siddiqui had ordered that the “former chief justice be provided foolproof security along with possession of a bulletproof car for his and his family’s use without putting embargo of any time specification.” The judge had also directed the law ministry to bear the expenses of the car’s maintenance.
The Cabinet Division later issued a notification stating that said the vehicle was being provided to the former CJP by the prime minister for a period of three months with the condition that he would bear fuel and other expenses.
Bulletproof car case: 'Case symbolises struggle for rule of law'
Additional Attorney General (AAG) Afnan Karim Kundi had argued that it was envisaged that the ex-CJP would arrange security for himself during three-month period but the single bench held that the “time-specific clause was unfeasible, unrealistic and is discriminatory.”
In the ICA, the appellants — the cabinet and law secretaries — said that they were not parties to the original case which led to a decision to provide a bulletproof car to Chaudhry.
Pretty penny
The month-wise breakdown of petrol used in the official car since January 2014 till January 2016 showed that 6,818.80 litres of fuel, worth Rs638,419, was provided to the former CJP. With Rs3,375,029 spent on repairs, the total cost to the taxpayer comes to Rs4,013,448.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 14th, 2016.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ