ISLAMABAD: An Islamabad High Court (IHC) bench on Monday sent a petition challenging the appointment of chief commissioner of Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) as chairman of the Capital Development Authority (CDA) to chief justice to constitute a larger bench to hear the case.
A single bench of IHC comprising Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb conducted the hearing of the case filed by Riaz Hanif Rahi Advocate.
During the hearing, Justice Aurangzeb remarked that it is a joke with Islamabad city as to how a person sitting in the office of chairman CDA would look after the matters related to the office of Chief Commissioner ICT.
Then, he sent the matter to Chief Justice IHC Justice Aamer Farooq to constitute a larger bench to hear the petition.
In his petition, Rahi cited the federation of Pakistan through secretary Ministry of Interior, secretary Cabinet Division, secretary Establishment Division, chairman CDA, and Capt Noorul Amin Mengal(retd) as respondents.
The petitioner informed the bench that Mengal, the respondent no5 is a retired army officer in BS-20 who has been appointed as chief commissioner ICT vide notification dated 23.01.2023 on the basis of which he has been appointed as chairman CDA vide notification dated 24.1.2023.
He added that the impugned notification has been issued under section 6(2) of CDA Ordinance, 1960 which carry different meanings and Chief Commissioner as Ex-Officio Member has not been recognised to be appointed as the Chairman of the Board.
Rahi contended that ex-officio member cannot be appointed as the Chairman of the Board as concluded in the last lines of para 26 of the judgment in Farrukh Nawaz Bhatti vs. Federal Government, reported as 2018 CLC 1275; therefore, the notification dated 24.01.2023 is in fact, contemptuous in nature and even its inclusion in summary dated 10.2.2021 is offensive to the judgment. He also said that the term Elite Capture used in the above judgment is an abuse of the Constitution, especially its Article 3.
He also contended that the impugned notification dated 24.1.2023 carries reference of Sec 6(2)of the CDA Ordinance but respondent no5 has not remained member at no material stage and mischievously created position as ex-officio member and is not mentioned in the notification dated 3.3.2021 which shows different provisions, i.e., Sec.6(1),(3) of the Ordinance.
He requested the court that the impugned notification dated 24.01.2023 may please be declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect and notification dated 3.3.2021 may further be declared as malafide, illegal and provide no basis for the appointment of chief commissioner as chairman CDA.
He also prayed to the court that a report from respondent no.1 may please be requisitioned with regard to dual position in different offices within the jurisdiction of this court in order to declare it as bad governance and direct the federal government to appoint senior independent officers of BPS-22 as chairman CDA on a regular basis as preferably by promotion.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023