PHC suspends stay order against PESCO chief’s appointment

Petitioners argued board of directors was incomplete when official was chosen.

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday suspended a stay order which restrained the federal government on February 13 from appointing the Pesco CEO.

The division bench of Chief Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel and Justice Irshad Qaiser suspended the stay order during a hearing of a petition filed by the All Pakistan WAPDA Hydro Union Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa chapter President Gohar Taj and Secretary General Mustajab Khan.

The counsel for the petitioners said a name was sent to the federal government for prospective Pesco CEOs. He said Pesco is a limited company and its affairs are run by the board of directors. Members of the board, through a majority consensus, choose a chairperson who is also called the CEO. The counsel said the federal government had given 12% share in the company to employees along with representation on the board. However, the counsel said the board is still incomplete as representation has not been given to the petitioners.



Pesco’s counsel Shumail Ahmad Butt said administrative work has been affected due to the delay in appointing a CEO. He added a name had been finalised, but a notification was not issued due to the stay order.

He said if the petitioners had any reservations, they should present them before the court during the  hearing of this case.  The court then suspended the stay order and directed the relevant secretaries to submit their replies within 14 days.

Bulletproof

In a separate case, the same bench allowed Shaukat Hayat, an industrialist, to use his bulletproof vehicle till further orders. The court also directed the standing counsel for the federal government to ask the interior ministry about the delay in issuing an NOC for the vehicle.

Shumail Butt told the court his client bought a bulletproof vehicle due to the law and order situation.

He applied for the NOC a year ago, but is still waiting for it to be issued.

CJ Miankhel remarked the provision of security to citizens is the responsibility of state and it was very strange the state was now asking for an NOC for someone’s protection.

The court then directed the standing counsel representing the federal government to ask the interior ministry for the reasons why it was not issuing the NOC.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 21^st, 2015.