ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has disposed of a petition that alleged the former Managing Director National Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority Sardar Mohazzam misused public funds, manipulated recruitment processes, and engaged in nepotism as MD NEECA.
A single-judge bench of Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas on 11-03-2026 disposed of the petition. The IHC order stated; “The counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have already approached the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) with regard to the criminal proceedings initiated against respondent No.6 (Sardar Mohazzam). However, the remaining prayer(s) in the petition have been rendered infructuous as respondent No.6 has already been retired from service.”
It’s worth mentioning that the FIA on 16-03-2026 closed the inquiry wherein the petitioners have approached the Agency to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondent No. 6. The letter dated 16-03-2026 stated “Permission for “Closure” of instant inquiry [Enquiry No. 159/2025 of CBC-Islamabad] is hereby accorded by the Director FIA, Islamabad Zone as recommended by EO, Circle In-charge and Law Officers.”
Justice Minhas, on 13-03-2025, after hearing the arguments of the petitioners’ counsel, had issued notices to the respondents with the direction to file their reply/parawise comments within fortnight.
The petitioners, Muhammad Sajjad Hussain and others, had challenged the appointment of respondent No.6 and sought an order restraining him from functioning as MD of NEECA/ECF. They also requested the IHC to direct FIA or any other appropriate agency to investigate the alleged wrongdoings.
It was alleged by the petitioners that respondent No.6’s appointment as Managing Director of NEECA violates the NEECA Act 2016, which mandates expertise in the energy and environmental sector, including at least 10 years of experience in handling energy projects.
They also alleged that despite lacking the necessary qualification, respondent No. 6 was appointed in 2019 for a 3-year term, which was later extended without any competitive process. Furthermore, the counsel claimed that the respondent No.6’s involvement in the consultancy business under the name and style of “Prudence Consulting”, directly conflicts with his position at NEECA, as he supervises energy sectors projects related to his own firm, a fact that was not disclosed at the time of appointment.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments