KARACHI, March 9: Former chief of the Bankers Equity, Rauf Bakhsh Kadri, has moved the Sindh High Court praying to declare that the reference No 30/2001 filed against him in the accountability court No 1 at Karachi is unlawful, illegal, formulated on capricious grounds, void ab initio, and thus liable to be quashed.

In the constitutional petition (386/2002), filed through M. Shafi Mohammedi, advocate, he prayed for the withdrawal of the said reference. The state and NAB have been made respondents in the petition. The petitioner had been convicted in five other cases.

The present petition is preferred in respect of a reference (Reference No 30/2001) which was filed nearly two years after the arrest of the petitioner by NAB in the accountability court on a complaint received from R. A. Chughtai, Deputy Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan.

The petitioner has contended that no complaint whatsoever was received by the SBP or NAB from any depositor, creditor, shareholder of BEL or any member of the LTV consortium. A complaint was filed by the SBP-appointed President of BEL on the instructions of Mr Chughtai. The NAB chairman had filed this interim reference in the accountability on June 15, 2001.

It is the case of the petitioner that the privatization agreement was signed by the LTV Consortium which consisted of nine companies, and the petitioner was acting only as an authorized representative. If there was a breach of the privatisation agreement on part of the LTV Consortium, the petitioner could not have been held singly responsible for this alleged breach. The proceedings against the petitioner in the accountability court were discriminatory and a violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

No final reference was ever filed by the NAB chairman, nor was any report filed, claimed the petitioner, saying if further investigation was conducted and completed, the petitioner might have been acquitted of all the charges. Therefore, the charges framed by the judge of the accountability court and the proceedings against the petitioner in the said court was not only discriminatory but also premature and as such liable to be quashed, the petitioner claimed.

It is the case of the petitioner that since the matter of the liquidation/ takeover of BEL was subjudice before the Supreme Court and the liquidation order against BEL had been suspended by the Court, the proceedings in the accountability court against the petitioner was in violation of natural justice and in contempt of the Supreme Court.