Petitioner wants to withdraw plea against Senator Saeed Ghani
Judges ask petitioner to move application before SHC bench that was originally hearing the case
PHOTO: EXPRESS
KARACHI:
After getting Senator Saeed Ghani into trouble for allegedly exercising executive authority in violation of the court's judgment, the petitioner has decided to step back.
Petitioner Abdul Sattar Niazi informed the Sindh High Court (SHC) on Wednesday that he wants to withdraw the case. However, a two-judge bench, headed by Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, asked Niazi to move his plea before another bench that was originally hearing the matter.
In court: Saeed Ghani restrained from exercising minister’s powers
The petitioner had alleged that even though the court had ruled against the use of any portfolio by the advisers, Sindh's ruling party's senator was still holding meetings of Sindh Employee Social Security Institution (Sessi)'s governing body.
On December 6, the high court had restrained Ghani, the advisor on labour and human resources, from exercising any executive authority or chairing Sessi meetings till further orders, he said in the plea. During the course of the proceedings, chief secretary Rizwan Ahmed Memon had submitted that after the court judgment in the advisers' case, none of the advisers were exercising any executive authority or ministerial powers, nor were they holding any portfolio.
Contrary to his statement, the petitioner had alleged that Ghani had called a meeting of the Sessi governing body as its chairperson. He also placed on record three letters issued by the Sessi on November 13 and December 15 last year, to show that every correspondence was sent for information to the adviser to the chief minister on labour and Sessi governing body chairperson. Therefore, the judges had directed the chief secretary to file a statement in the court to this effect.
During the follow-up proceedings on December 30, the petitioner once again insisted that the senator was violating the court's judgment by continuously exercising executive authority and powers. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, observed that there appeared to be a violation of the statement given by the chief secretary, wherein he had categorically stated that after the SHC judgment none of the advisers were exercising any executive authority or any ministerial power.
Staying put: Saeed Ghani to retain Senate seat
The court had further observed that what caused the department to keep the adviser abreast of the daily nitty-gritty of executive authority being exercised by the respective officers. It observed that such an aspect gave clear reasons to believe that orders of the court were circumvented and the undertaking given by the chief secretary was not adhered to. Therefore, it had directed the chief secretary to submit his reply within seven days.
On Wednesday, the case was fixed before another bench, headed by justice Abbasi, due to the ongoing winter vacations in the high court. The petitioner moved a miscellaneous application, seeking withdrawal of his petition. The two-judges, however, did not pass an order on the application and adjourned the hearing. They asked the petitioner to move the application before the other bench that was originally hearing the matter.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 5th, 2017.
After getting Senator Saeed Ghani into trouble for allegedly exercising executive authority in violation of the court's judgment, the petitioner has decided to step back.
Petitioner Abdul Sattar Niazi informed the Sindh High Court (SHC) on Wednesday that he wants to withdraw the case. However, a two-judge bench, headed by Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, asked Niazi to move his plea before another bench that was originally hearing the matter.
In court: Saeed Ghani restrained from exercising minister’s powers
The petitioner had alleged that even though the court had ruled against the use of any portfolio by the advisers, Sindh's ruling party's senator was still holding meetings of Sindh Employee Social Security Institution (Sessi)'s governing body.
On December 6, the high court had restrained Ghani, the advisor on labour and human resources, from exercising any executive authority or chairing Sessi meetings till further orders, he said in the plea. During the course of the proceedings, chief secretary Rizwan Ahmed Memon had submitted that after the court judgment in the advisers' case, none of the advisers were exercising any executive authority or ministerial powers, nor were they holding any portfolio.
Contrary to his statement, the petitioner had alleged that Ghani had called a meeting of the Sessi governing body as its chairperson. He also placed on record three letters issued by the Sessi on November 13 and December 15 last year, to show that every correspondence was sent for information to the adviser to the chief minister on labour and Sessi governing body chairperson. Therefore, the judges had directed the chief secretary to file a statement in the court to this effect.
During the follow-up proceedings on December 30, the petitioner once again insisted that the senator was violating the court's judgment by continuously exercising executive authority and powers. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, observed that there appeared to be a violation of the statement given by the chief secretary, wherein he had categorically stated that after the SHC judgment none of the advisers were exercising any executive authority or any ministerial power.
Staying put: Saeed Ghani to retain Senate seat
The court had further observed that what caused the department to keep the adviser abreast of the daily nitty-gritty of executive authority being exercised by the respective officers. It observed that such an aspect gave clear reasons to believe that orders of the court were circumvented and the undertaking given by the chief secretary was not adhered to. Therefore, it had directed the chief secretary to submit his reply within seven days.
On Wednesday, the case was fixed before another bench, headed by justice Abbasi, due to the ongoing winter vacations in the high court. The petitioner moved a miscellaneous application, seeking withdrawal of his petition. The two-judges, however, did not pass an order on the application and adjourned the hearing. They asked the petitioner to move the application before the other bench that was originally hearing the matter.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 5th, 2017.