AIRLINK 71.93 Decreased By ▼ -0.25 (-0.35%)
BOP 4.98 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (1.01%)
CNERGY 4.33 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.46%)
DFML 29.82 Increased By ▲ 1.33 (4.67%)
DGKC 81.70 Increased By ▲ 0.40 (0.49%)
FCCL 21.60 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.47%)
FFBL 32.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.30 (-0.91%)
FFL 9.89 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.3%)
GGL 10.38 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.95%)
HBL 113.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.50 (-0.44%)
HUBC 137.00 Decreased By ▼ -3.00 (-2.14%)
HUMNL 10.03 Increased By ▲ 1.00 (11.07%)
KEL 4.68 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-1.06%)
KOSM 4.42 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.91%)
MLCF 37.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.25 (-0.66%)
OGDC 133.49 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-0.16%)
PAEL 25.80 Increased By ▲ 0.20 (0.78%)
PIAA 24.25 Increased By ▲ 0.27 (1.13%)
PIBTL 6.47 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.15%)
PPL 120.81 Decreased By ▼ -1.81 (-1.48%)
PRL 27.10 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.11%)
PTC 13.65 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.37%)
SEARL 57.70 Increased By ▲ 1.08 (1.91%)
SNGP 68.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.34 (-0.49%)
SSGC 10.25 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.87%)
TELE 8.60 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (1.78%)
TPLP 11.21 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.62%)
TRG 61.80 Increased By ▲ 0.59 (0.96%)
UNITY 25.39 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.24%)
WTL 1.61 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (7.33%)
BR100 7,581 Decreased By -48.6 (-0.64%)
BR30 24,871 Decreased By -118.9 (-0.48%)
KSE100 72,484 Decreased By -117.8 (-0.16%)
KSE30 23,365 Decreased By -173.7 (-0.74%)

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday set aside the federal government''s notification regarding removal of Muhstaq Ahmad Sukhera as Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO). Former Inspector General (IG) of Police, Punjab, Mushtaq Sukhera was appointed FTO in August 2017 by the then Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz government. However, the federal government removed Sukhera from the post of FTO by withdrawing the official notification for his appointment.
A single bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice Athar Minallah announced the decision in the petition of Mushtaq Sukhera, challenging his removal from the post of FTO.
The court verdict said: "The impugned notification was illegal and definitely issued in violation of the scheme of the Constitution, the Ordinance of 2000 read with the Act of 2013."
The IHC bench added, "This court cannot ignore the lack of care exercised by the Ministry of Law and Justice in initiating summary dated 17-05-2019. The attorney general could not give a plausible explanation regarding a different stance taken by the Ministry of Law and Justice in the case of the recently appointed Ombudsman under the Insurance Ordinance of 2000."
"The Ministry of Law and Justice was expected to have taken extraordinary care while initiating the summary because what had been proposed had serious consequences for an essential salient feature of the Constitution, ie, parliamentary form of government and democracy, besides the independence of a statutory adjudicatory public office."
The judgment further said that the Ministry of Law and Justice was proposing a course of action based on interpretation of section 3(1) of the Ordinance of 2000 which was a drastic departure from the interpretation that had led to appointments made from time to time for almost two decades.
Therefore, the petitioner prayed to the court to set aside the said impugned notification for being illegal and without jurisdiction. He also requested the court to restrain the respondents from interfering in the due performance and functioning of the petitioner as FTO.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2019

Comments

Comments are closed.