EOBI’s ‘suggestions’ sought on disputed assets
“The most significant issue for the government to take up is the resolution of the issues that have cropped up after the 18th Amendment. Crucial matters need to be taken up in the Council of Common Interest (CCI) on urgent basis,” stated Federal Ombudsman Salman Farooqi in the report. PHOTO: FILE
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought written suggestions from the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution’s (EOBI) lawyer about its client’s disputed properties within two weeks.
The hearing of the suo motu case of the alleged irregularities in the EOBI was conducted by a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial.
Khawaja Haris, the lawyer representing the EOBI, informed the court that the issue of two of the 18 disputed properties had been settled. He added that his client wanted to keep 12 of the remaining properties.
The remaining five should be transferred to a civil court, he pleaded.
To this Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, who is also on bench, noted that the court could adopt two principles for the EOBI. “We cannot allow it to retain [such properties] where the advantage lies and let the sellers suffer the losses,” he added.
Former CJ Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had taken suo motu notice of the multi-billion scam in which the then EOBI chairman Zafar Iqbal Gondal and other officials were accused of investing large sums of money in housing schemes and purchasing vehicles in various cities without the approval of the institution’s board of directors.
The lawyer representing Eden Housing argued in the court that the matter was not a case of suo motu notice.
HE added that the apex court had issued orders in the case in its jurisdiction. On the order of the court, he contended, the EOBI also kept the money and properties.
“The EOBI should first refund the amount including interest. If there is any dispute, the civil court will resolve it.”
Lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan said the case had been under way for 10 years and the court had taken suo motu notice of the matter under Article 184/3.
“Does this matter fall under the domain of Article 184/3?” he added.
The lawyer further said a TV show had spent 10 years of people's lives in litigation.
To this, the CJP replied that the case was being heard to reach a logical conclusion.
The bench directed Haris to submit written suggestions on the 12 properties to the court.
The lawyer replied that the EOBI wanted to return five properties. “I will submit my written submissions on these five properties to the court.”
In its order, the court directed the sellers of the properties to submit their response to the suggestions and adjourned then hearing of the case for a month.
(With input from APP)