PEMRA chief reinstatement: Govt challenges IHC decision

IHC passed order without seeking detailed comments, says petition filed in SC.

ISLAMABAD:

The Federal Government through Establishment Division and ministry of law filed a petition in the Supreme Court on Wednesday challenging the restoration of deposed PEMRA Chairman, Rashid Ahmed.

The government has pleaded that the removal order of Pemra Chairman issued by the government were suspended by the IHC and the deposed chairman was  restored without the government being given a fair chance to explain its decision.

It has been pleaded in the petition that the government should have been given a fair chance of defence before announcing ex-parte decision.

The government has asked the apex court to suspend the IHC judgment.



The government’s counsel Hafiz SA Rehman said that the judicial order has caused administrative difficulty, as two chairmen of Pemra are currently dispensing their duties.

He said that the summary moved for the appointment of the Pemra chairman was in violation of principles laid down by the Supreme Court as it breached rules of business.

The government in its petition also mentioned a Supreme Court decision under which it was mandatory for it to appoint an ‘exceptional’ person as chairman Pemra. The SC in its decision on January 15, 2013 held, “…the appointment [of chairman Pemra] has to be made through an open and transparent process to ensure that the appointee meets the objective criteria specified in the Pemra ordinance.”

The petition further states that since the appointment of Ahmed was non-transparent, a summary was moved to the prime minister stating that it was violating principles of law.

The government has taken the plea that the IHC had no jurisdiction under Article 199 to pass the impugned order when Rashid Ahmed was being governed by non-statutory rules. The order of the IHC is liable to be set aside, the petition maintained.

The appointment of the Pemra chairman is to be made by the federal government under section 6 of the Pemra (Amendment) Act 2007 and shall hold office during the pleasure of the federal government, thus, the petition maintains the respondent had no legal character or right to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction which is discretionary.

The respondent has not vested rights to hold a particular post and such right is not justiciable under the constitutional jurisdiction.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 19^th, 2013.