IHC adjourns hearing of sugar mills case till Tuesday

  • The court remarked that National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and other institutions were authorized to conduct investigations on their own into any matter.
20 Jul, 2020

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) adjourned hearing till Tuesday on intra court appeal of sugar mills association against establishment of sugar inquiry commission.

A division bench, comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, conducted hearing on intra-court appeal against the decision of single member bench.

During the course of proceedings, Justice Aurangzeb remarked that the inquiry report was not binding for any institution to take action, adding the single member bench had pointed out this fact in its judgment.

The court remarked that National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and other institutions were authorized to conduct investigations on their own into any matter.

If these departments start investigation on their own into sugar crisis, then who would be pointed out by the petitioners, it further said.

The bench further remarked that it would not be able to stop the department's investigations and action even if the commission's report was set aside.

Petitioners' lawyer Makhdoom Ali Advocate pleaded that this report could influence the investigation process when it would be sent to the departments officially.

The basic stance, he said, was that this report was damaging the reputation of sugar mills' owners.

He said that the report had alleged the sugar mills for increasing sugar prices illegally, to this Justice Aurangzeb remarked that it had been stated in collective manner, and no one had been named specifically.

The lawyer said the whole sugar industry had been alleged for price increase.

He pleaded that government couldn't bring changes in inquiry commission, once it had been constituted.

The commission, he said, was authorized to summon any one into the matter.

After this, the court adjourned hearing of the case till Tuesday, wherein the petitioners' lawyer would continue his arguments.

Read Comments