KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) adjourned the hearing in a contempt of court case against K-Electric relating to load-shedding till September 18 due to prior engagements of the power utility’s lawyer.
Addressing a two-member bench, Barrister Saad Siddiqui argued that the Supreme Court has already taken suo motu notice on the load-shedding issue and the matter is pending before the apex court. This case is different to the SC’s case, the barrister said.
The petitioner, Karamat Ali, said that the K-E and National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra) authorities were not acting in accordance with the court’s orders. It stated that many citizens had lost their lives from the heatwave coupled with load-shedding.
The court had ordered Nepra to take action against K-E. However, unannounced load-shedding continues to persist in the city, which was a contempt of court orders.
The SHC issued notices to the home department, police, Rangers and others regarding the disappearance of a man, Umar.
A two-member bench heard the petition filed by Umar’s two wives Masmaatul Shamsul Nisa and Rehana.
Their lawyer, Advocate Abdul Waheed, argued that Umar was kidnapped from his house by law enforcers on July 13 and institutions were not giving any information to the wives on the whereabouts of their husband. Law enforcement agency officials also detained the women and 10 children for 19 days, the lawyer argued.
During custody, they were able to meet their husband, who appeared to have been tortured.
The petitioners stated if there was is any allegation against Umar, it should be presented before the court.
After hearing the arguments, the bench summoned replies from the home department, police, Rangers and security agencies.
Meanwhile, the SHC rejected an appeal to recount the votes in PS-128. A two-member bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, heard a petition filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s Nusrat Anwar requesting for a recount in PS-128 against the victory of Muttahida Quami Movement – Pakistan’s Muhammad Abbas Jaffri’s victory.
The petitioner’s lawyer argued that there was a margin of 1,709 votes. The Form-45 wasn’t available at many of the constituency’s polling stations, he said.
However, Justice Mazhar remarked that the high court and returning officers held no authority after the victory notification of a candidate is issued.
The court directed the petitioner to contact the election tribunal for a complaint relating to the winning candidate.