Lahore High Court's Justice Shahid Karim announced the verdict after PTI chief Imran Khan's counsel Advocate Babar Awan finished presenting his argument.
At the start of the proceedings, Justice Karim had asked the PTI counsel to explain whether any court had declared the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report on Panama Papers case effective or not.
He was also reminded that the LHC had dismissed the petition against Chief Minister Shehbaz Sharif's personal business.
PTI seeks Shehbaz’s disqualification
Awan said the court was right in its observation but the chief minister had concealed facts in his nomination papers.
He added that besides the exposures in the JIT report, Shehbaz's influence as the chief minister in the setting up and relocation of certain sugar mills was also quite clear.
Therefore, he pleaded , that Sharif should be disqualified.
After hearing Awan’s arguments, Justice Karim reserved the verdict and later announced the dismissal of the petition.
Awan had also mentioned PTI leader Jahangir Khan Tareen’s petition against the Punjab government for allowing the shifting and relocation of sugar mills. He pointed out the LHC’s observation in that case that the government had crafted a policy to benefit selected sugar mills.
Ready for a disqualification reference, CM Shehbaz tells Imran
Tareen in his petition had alleged that the Punjab chief minister had misused his powers by allowing his relatives and others to set up new sugar mills and their relocation to South Punjab through an illegal notification.
Earlier, the PTI chairman had said Shehbaz was ruling Punjab for about nine years and despite being the custodian of all fiscal resources and assets of the province, he was acting contrary to it.
Justifying the submission of his petition before the court, Imran said the PTI had also moved a reference in the Punjab Assembly for Shehbaz's disqualification but Speaker Rana Muhammad Iqbal Khan had dismissed it.
COMMENTS (2)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ