The Lahore High Court last week sought a reply from the provincial government and the flood relief commissioner on a petition seeking directions for authorities to ensure rehabilitation of people affected by floods.
NGO Helm Foundation had filed the petition through its counsel Advocate Safdar Shaheen Pirzada.
He told the court that the recent floods had destroyed the lives of thousands of people in the province. He said many people had been displaced by the floods and were not being provided proper facilities.
Replies sought from federal govt, NAB
On September 9, the Lahore High Court sought replies from the federal government and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on appeal of the Sharif family challenging reopening of Ittefaq Foundry reference by the bureau.
The NAB had reopened three references - Hudaibiya Papers Mills, Jati Umra land sale and the Ittefaq Foundry - against the Sharif family.
The appeal against the reopening was admitted by Justice Sardar Muhammad Shamim Khan.
Justice Khan was hearing these appeals as referee judge after Justice Sheikh Najamul Hassan refused to further proceed on with the matter.
Then chief justice Umar Ata Bandial had appointed Justice Hassan as referee judge after a division bench dealing with the matter of the Sharif family at Rawalpindi disagreed on a legal point.
Detention of PAT workers
The Lahore High Court last week issued a notice to the Lahore district coordination officer on a petition filed by Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) against the detention of its 72 workers.
Justice James Joseph held the first hearing of the petition.
Advocate Ishtiaq Chaudhry was representing the party.
The lawyer argued that the government had been victimising PAT workers on political grounds. He said the government detained at least 72 workers of the party and was not producing them before a court.
Election Commission
Last week, the LHC sought replies from the federal government and the Election Commission of Pakistan on an appeal challenging an amendment to Presidential Election Rules 1998 during the regime of Pervez Musharraf terminating enforcement of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution in the polls.
Advocate Azhar Siddique filed an intra-court appeal (ICA) against dismissal of his writ petition by a single bench.
A division bench headed by Justice Ijazul Ahsan took up the appeal.
The lawyer argued that the amendment had facilitated Musharraf in the presidential election held in 2007.
He said provisions of Articles 62 and 63 were applicable on all elections. He argued that the amendment was unconstitutional and aimed at favouring the military ruler.
Former law minister
On September 11, a contempt of court petition was filed in the Lahore High Court against former Law Minister Rana Sanaullah. Advocate Azhar Siddique filed the petition.
He said the inquiry tribunal headed by Justice Ali Baqar Najfi had completed the inquiry into Model Town incident and handed it over to the Punjab government. He said Sanaullah’s statement that a reference would be filed in Supreme Judicial Council against Justice Najfi was against Article 204 of the Constitution.
He asked the court to initiate contempt of court proceedings against Sanaullah.
Appeal seeking PM’s disqualification dismissed
Lahore High Court last week dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition seeking disqualification of PM Nawaz Sharif and Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan for lying to the parliament about the army’s role in the current political impasse in country. The bench, headed by Justice Ijazul Ahsan, took up the petition and upheld the ruling of a single bench and dismissed the appeal. Insaf Lawyers’ Forum Punjab Vice President Gohar Nawaz Sindhu had filed the appeal. The petitioner said the prime minister and the interior minister had violated the Constitution by lying that the government had not invited the army chief to mediate in the deadlock.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 15th, 2014.
COMMENTS (1)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ