KARACHI: Election of Dy Speaker challenged in High Court
By Shujaat Ali Khan
KARACHI, Dec 16: A lawyer has requested the Sindh High Court to invalidate the extension of time allowed by the provincial governor for filing of nomination papers for the offices of the Sindh Assembly speaker and deputy speaker and declare MMA MPA Abdul Rehman Rajput as having been elected deputy speaker unopposed.
In a petition filed on Monday, advocate Suhail Hameed maintained that time was extended only to prevent the uncontested election of Mr Rajput. The governor had no power to extend time once a valid nomination had been received for the office of the deputy speaker.
Arguing that the governor enjoys no immunity from the process of law in respect of arbitrary exercise of his constitutional functions, the lawyer impleaded him as a respondent and sought a court direction to him to act in accordance with the law.
He also cited Speaker Muzaffar Hussain Shah and Deputy Speaker Raheela Tiwana as respondents for not allowing Mr Rajput to act as deputy speaker.
Two poll petitions: Two election tribunals admitted on Monday two petitions challenging the election of an MMA candidate to the National Assembly and that of a Muttahida Qaumi Movement candidate to the Sindh Assembly from Karachi.
Petitioner Iftikhar Husain of the PPP contended that Hakim Qari Gul Rahman of the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal, who was declared elected from NA-239 (Karachi- I) in October 10 polls, was not a graduate. He had a certificate from a Madressa that was not equivalent to a BA or BSc degree. The Karachi University equivalence certificate submitted by him along with his nomination papers was forged by him. According to the university, there is no record of his having approached it nor does it have a copy of the certificate claimed to have been given by it to him.
The petitioner also alleged that the returning officer of the constituency indulged in corrupt practices to favour the MMA candidate. The different results issued by him showed the successful candidate getting varying number of votes.
The tribunal, which consisted of Justice Zawwar Hussain Jafferi of the Sindh High Court, issued notices to the respondent RO, the MNA and other respondents for Jan 13.
Another election tribunal, comprising Justice Ghulam Rabbani, admitted MMA candidate Saiful Islam’s petition against the election of his rival of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, Akhtar Bilgrami, from PS-113 (Karachi-XXV). He claimed that he had obtained more votes than the MQM nominee but the results were changed at the last moment in favour of Mr Bilgrami.
The tribunal issued notices to the MPA and other respondents for Jan 10.
CONTEMPT CASE: The Sindh High Court has decided to prosecute two city government officials for contempt committed by them by demolishing a structure without notice and in apparent breach of an undertaking to the court.
Charges were framed and read out to accused contemners Muhammad Imran Shaikh, assistant district officers (anti-encroachment cell), City District Government Karachi, and Jamil Ahmed, assistant director for works and services, Korangi division, on Dec 10. Both pleaded not guilty and a division bench decided to try them from Dec 18, Wednesday. A notice was issued to the advocate-general to conduct the trial in terms of the Contempt of Court Act of 1976. Notices served on seven other officials were discharged “for the time being.” The division bench consisted of Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Amir Hani Muslim.
The bench observed in its order that both the officials were involved in the demolition, on Oct 19, of a construction raised on plot number A-235, Sector 35-C, Muhammadi Market, Korangi 3-1/2, by petitioner Haji Abdul Aziz. They had full knowledge that the demolition was being undertaken without notice to the petitioner and that the city government had furnished an undertaking “that it would act impartially and strictly in accordance with law in a dispute which appeared to be private.”
The bench noted the contention of city government counsel Manzoor Ahmed that petitioner Haji Aziz had encroached on public property and that the government had the power to remove encroachments. But, it pointed out, there was a clear court observation that “there seems to be a private dispute between the petitioner and three of the respondents.” The counsel did not object to the observation nor did it bring anything contrary on record.
Even otherwise, the bench observed, the Sindh Public Properties (Removal of Encroachments) Act required a notice to be served upon the encroacher and the counsel had not been able to refer to any law enabling the city government to take action without notice.
As for the decision to try two of the 11 alleged contemners cited by the petitioner, the bench observed that they were present at the site at the time of demolition as shown by photographs produced by the petitioner.
