KARACHI, Dec 18: The Sindh High Court decided on Wednesday to settle the dispute over the control and management of the Institute of Behavioral Sciences (IBS) after hearing detailed arguments on Dec 24.
Justice Zahid Kurban Alavi took up the matter on Wednesday afternoon and briefly heard the submissions made by the counsel for the plaintiff, Dr A. Q. Khan, and the defendants, the Pakistan Association of Mental Health (PAMH) and its president, Dr S. Haroon Ahmed.
In response to Advocate Farogh Nasim’s plea on the plaintiff’s behalf for extension of the ex-parte interim order of Dec 11 restraining the defendants from interfering in the IBS affairs, Justice Alavi observed that he saw no reason to extend the stay. He observed that he would rather finally decide the matter on Dec 24 after full-fledged arguments by the two sides early in the morning.
The stay in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant granted by Justice Zia Perwez on Dec 11, meanwhile, expired on Wednesday.
Referring to the averments made by the defendants in their counter- affidavits submitted through their counsel, Advocates Kazim Hassan and Akhtar Hussain, Justice Alavi inquired from the plaintiff’s counsel about the locus standi and legal status and character of Dr Khan in respect of the control and day-to-day management of the IBS affairs. According to the plaintiff, he is the patron of the institute, which is an unregistered body. The judge also wanted to know who was in effective control of the institute.
Advocate Farogh Nasim said he would submit a rejoinder to the counter- affidavits to further explain the plaintiff’s case and answer the contentions raised by the defendants.
Refuting the plaintiff’s claims, the defendants submitted in their counter- affidavits that Dr Khan had little to do with the establishment or management of the IBS, which was in effective control of Dr S. Haroon Ahmed, who was its executive director and the president of its parent body, PAMH. The plaintiff, “physically and by use of force through armed guards,” dispossessed him on Dec 10 and approached the court to get a judicial endorsement of his unlawful occupation. He personally supervised the operation that caused consternation among “the extremely vulnerable” mental patients admitted there.
The suit, they said, was mala fide as the plaintiff was neither a psychiatrist nor a medical expert who could remote control and run the IBS affairs from Islamabad. He could not even qualify as a philanthropist as he had made no substantial personal donation to the institute.
In his counter-affidavit, Dr Haroon said the PAMH was set up by several like-minded professionals concerned about the plight of the mentally-retarded people as far back as 1970. It was registered under the Voluntary Social Welfare Agencies (Registration and Control) Ordinance the same year.
The association decided to establish an institute for diagnosis and treatment of neurological disorders in 1975 but it was not before 1995 that the Sindh government allotted it a six-acre plot for the institute. An earlier army offer for a one-acre plot was not found acceptable as the GHQ wanted a change in nomenclature. The plaintiff was in no way involved in these efforts.
He was named chairman of the governing body appointed for the IBS in 1995. But he inducted his brother Abdul Qayyum Khan and a personal friend, Mian S. M. Farooq, as members of the governing body in place of experts. In 1998 he was made patron of the institute but considerable mistrust had by then developed between him and those running the IBS voluntarily. Earlier this year, his brother and friend in the governing body moved for the establishment of an “A. Q. Khan Centre” at the IBS.
The governing body, however, elected former Supreme Court judge Nasir Aslam Zahid as its chairman and disposed of the agenda in August 2002. Mr Farooq’s move to confer more powers on the patron (the plaintiff) was considered and it was agreed to constitute a committee with Justice Mushir Alam of the Sindh High Court as its chairman to formulate a proposal in this regard.
The matter rested there when the plaintiff decided to take matters in his own hands and forcibly take over the institute in violation of the law and rules.
In their preliminary objections, the defendants said the suit was not maintainable as declarations sought were barred by the Specific Relief Act.
The plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action. Patronship of an organization is an office of honour and not of power or profit.
Besides, the Sindh government, which is a necessary party, has not been joined as a defendant. They sought summary dismissal of the suit and vacation of the ex- parte interim order under the law and in the interest of the suffering inmates, who have already undergone mental torture.
