BAFL 45.66 Increased By ▲ 0.56 (1.24%)
BIPL 20.08 Decreased By ▼ -0.17 (-0.84%)
BOP 5.34 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-1.11%)
CNERGY 4.54 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.22%)
DFML 16.01 Increased By ▲ 0.33 (2.1%)
DGKC 78.62 Increased By ▲ 5.74 (7.88%)
FABL 27.80 Increased By ▲ 0.65 (2.39%)
FCCL 18.86 Increased By ▲ 1.21 (6.86%)
FFL 8.96 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-1.43%)
GGL 12.85 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (1.66%)
HBL 111.54 Increased By ▲ 0.88 (0.8%)
HUBC 122.23 Increased By ▲ 0.71 (0.58%)
HUMNL 7.69 Increased By ▲ 0.34 (4.63%)
KEL 3.29 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (1.86%)
LOTCHEM 27.80 Increased By ▲ 0.48 (1.76%)
MLCF 42.36 Increased By ▲ 3.03 (7.7%)
OGDC 110.37 Increased By ▲ 2.37 (2.19%)
PAEL 18.97 Increased By ▲ 1.41 (8.03%)
PIBTL 5.46 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PIOC 114.91 Increased By ▲ 6.91 (6.4%)
PPL 94.72 Increased By ▲ 2.97 (3.24%)
PRL 25.32 Increased By ▲ 0.44 (1.77%)
SILK 1.10 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (1.85%)
SNGP 64.32 Increased By ▲ 1.22 (1.93%)
SSGC 12.26 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (3.11%)
TELE 8.36 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (2.08%)
TPLP 13.35 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (1.83%)
TRG 83.84 Increased By ▲ 2.23 (2.73%)
UNITY 25.89 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (0.54%)
WTL 1.54 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (1.32%)
BR100 6,308 Increased By 126.6 (2.05%)
BR30 21,973 Increased By 434.1 (2.02%)
KSE100 61,691 Increased By 1160 (1.92%)
KSE30 20,555 Increased By 366.1 (1.81%)

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) will hear Omar Sarfraz Cheema’s petition against his removal as Governor Punjab.

A single bench of Chief Justice Athar Minallah will take up the petition filed by Cheema through his counsel Babar Awan advocate.

Earlier, the IHC registrar office raised objections over his petition saying that the matter belongs to Punjab and does not fall under the jurisdiction of the IHC. Now, the IHC chief justice will hear the petition along with the objections raised by the office.

In his petition, Cheema cited the Federation of Pakistan through the secretary Cabinet Division, Secretary to the President of Pakistan, and the Speaker Provincial Assembly Punjab as respondents.

He stated that the petitioner was appointed as the Governor of the province of Punjab by the President of Pakistan and the appointment was made in terms of article 101 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

He reproduced the provisions of Article 101, “(1) There, shall be a Governor for each Province who shall be appointed by the President on the advise of the Prime Minister. (2)A person shall not be appointed a Governor unless he is qualified to be elected as a member of the National Assembly and is not less than thirty five years of age (and is a registered voter and resident of the Province concerned).”

The article further reads, “(3) The Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President (and shall be entitled to such salary, allowances and privileges as the President may determine.) (4) The Governor may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office. (5) The President may make such provision as he thinks fit for the discharge of the functions of a Governor [in any contingency not provided for in this part.]”

The petitioner further contended that he was so appointed vide notification/ bearing number No 3-1/2022-Min-Il dated 5th April 2022 duly issued by cabinet division Government of Pakistan. He added that the notification clearly refers to article 101 of the constitution.

He further said that once, a Governor of a province is appointed his continuation in the office or removal from the office is solely left on the pleasure of the President including him to allow such salary, allowances and privileges as the President may determine.

The former governor contended that it is also noteworthy that according to this express provision of the constitution the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President of Republic and none else including the chief executive or a court. “This constitutional domain is to maintain the balance between different offices having the constitutional mandate,” maintained the petitioner.

He argued that the impugned act of respondent No-1 regarding his removal is against the express provisions of the constitution and fundamental rights of the petitioner including Articles 2-A, 4, 8 in addition to other provisions related thereto.

He, therefore, prayed that the impugned notification related to his removal may be declared without jurisdiction, unconstitutional, illegal, void ab-initio and of no legal effect, as against the petitioner.

He further prayed that appropriate action be also ordered against respondent No1 for issuance of notification impugned by displaying the disloyalty to the Constitution.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2022


Comments are closed.