Aziz challenges IHC’s decision

Mayor’s lawyer contends that judgment had failed to properly interpret the language of notification

ISLAMABAD: The capital’s Mayor on Wednesday challenged a verdict issued by the Islamabad High Court which had ousted him from CDA hot seat.

Islamabad Metropolitan Corporation (IMC) Mayor Sheikh Anser Aziz, through his counsel Taimoor Aslam, filed a petition challenging the order passed by Justice Athar Minallah of the Islamabad High Court on December 29, 2017. The order had set aside two notifications pertaining to Aziz’s appointment as the chairman of the Capital Development Authority (CDA).

Justice Minallah had further ordered the federal government to complete the process of selecting and appointing a new chairman of the civic body for a fixed term within 45 days.

The verdict came after petitioners had challenged the notifications whereby Aziz was given the additional charge of the office of chairman of the CDA on a part-time basis after his ex-officio appointment as a member of the board.

The gist of the arguments was that the doctrine of separation of power enshrined in the constitution was not upheld. It was further argued that the appointment of Aziz as CDA chairman was in violation of the Islamabad Capital Territory Local Government Act 2015.

In the petition, Aziz’s counsel had argued that the judgment had failed to properly interpret the statutory language of such notifications.

While arguing on the conflict of interest pointed out by the court, Aslam said that the reasons presented by the court were not in accordance with the facts since sufficient documents had been placed on the record to establish that Aziz had resigned from his company in February 2016 before being appointed as CDA chairman in September that year.

“One cannot disclose what does not exist,” Aslam stated in the petition, adding that the deliverance of a part-time charge had absolutely nothing to do with the indirect control of CDA but was at the discretion of the federal government.

“There is nothing on the record to even insinuate a financial conflict of interest,” he added.

Additionally, the counsel said that the process of selection cannot be disputed or questioned in any manner; however, the judgment had led to a direction to the effect for a process to be initiated and completed within 45 days for selection and nomination of an eligible candidate.

The impugned judgment, he contended, breaches the coveted borders of the three institutions – the executive, the legislature and the judiciary – and “enters unknowingly into the realm of the legislature and gives the statute a language that did not exist nor was thought of by the framers at the time of promulgating the same.”

The impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and facts of the case and is liable to be set aside, he urged. Subsequently, he has prayed the court to allow an intra-court appeal, set aside the judgment of December 29, 2017, and dismiss all the petitions that challenged the appointment of chairman CDA.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 18^th, 2018.