Sanaullah, Tauqir to face Model Town tribunal today

The tribunal had directed the two last week to submit their comments by Monday.


Rana Tanveer June 29, 2014
Sanaullah, Tauqir to face Model Town tribunal today

LAHORE:


Former law minister Rana Sanaullah and former principal secretary to chief minister Tauqir Shah will file affidavits before the judicial tribunal of the Lahore High Court on Monday (today), giving their side of the story about the June 17 police action in Model Town that led to the killing of 14 people.


The tribunal had directed the two last week to submit their comments by Monday.

It had also summoned those who were injured during the clashes on June 17. The tribunal directed the capital city police officer (CCPO) to convey the court’s message to the injured and ensure their presence.

It is unclear whether the injured would appear before the tribunal since their leader, Tahirul Qadri, had rejected the commission’s proceedings.

The tribunal had also summoned the Punjab home secretary, the Lahore commissioner and the CCPO to appear before it on June 30.

The tribunal directed the health secretary to appear before it and ensure the presence of medical officers from Jinnah Hospital, Services Hospital, General Hospital and Ganga Ram Hospital along with the record of post mortem and medico-legal reports of the victims of the police action.

Lesco chief

During the last week, Lahore High Court issued a show cause notice to the Lahore Electric Supply Company (Lesco) chief and summoned him for not responding to notices issued to him in a case of ‘incorrect billing’.

Muhammad Ijaz, a consumer, had filed the petition saying that Lesco had issued him a bill for Rs304.8 million. He said he filed several complaints with the authorities but they had taken no action. He requested the court to order Lesco to cancel the bill and issue a new one. Justice Khalid Mahmood Khan had issued several notices to the Lesco chief but he had not turned up.

Judicial allowance

The LHC warned the Punjab government last week that the salaries of its officers would be stopped if the judicial allowance was not given to the court employees.

Hearing a petition against non-payment of the allowance for many years, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah also summoned the finance secretary at the next hearing.

The petitioners’ counsel argued that the federal government had announced 50 per cent judicial and ad-hoc relief allowance for employees of high courts. He said employees of the Supreme Court and all high courts, except the LHC, had been given the allowance. He said four years had lapsed but the employees of the LHC were still waiting for the allowances despite various directions of the court.

Bagram prisoners

The LHC ordered the Interior Ministry last week to arrange a psychiatric test of a detainee repatriated from Bagram jail in Afghanistan presently detained at central jail in Sahiwal.

Justice Khalid Mahmood Khan passed the order while hearing a petition against the detention of several Pakistanis by the US in Bagram.

Fined for perjury

The LHC last week fined a petitioner for perjury and ordered him to deposit Rs100,000 with the Lahore High Court Bar Association’s (LHCBA) dispensary.

Petitioner Rana Ashique Ali had filed a petition against the Board of Revenue (BoR), saying that he had not been supplied attested analytical reports of sales tax by the BoR. During the course of hearing, the board’s counsel informed the court that the petitioner had already filed another petition that was pending before another judge.

He said the petitioner had annexed attested reports of sales tax with that petition. The lawyer also produced documents to this effect and said the petitioner was misleading the court.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed that the petitioner had committed perjury. The judge imposed a fine on the petitioner and directed him to deposit it with the LHCBA dispensary.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 30th, 2014.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ