LAHORE, May 25: The Lahore High Court's registrar office has refused for the second time the fixing of a writ petition filed by Nusrat Shahbaz, wife of Shahbaz Sharif, before a bench of the Lahore High Court.
Her counsel says the office is taking a judicial decision which is the prerogative of the superior judiciary. Nusrat Shahbaz has requested the Lahore High Court to order federal and provincial governments not to deport her as and when she returns home in the future.
The petition of Nusrat Shahbaz was separated from the one filed by her husband on May 7, making a similar request. The office raised four objections and returned both the petitions on May 10.
Later, the petition of Shahbaz Sharif was dropped and the office was asked by counsel Barrister Mohammad Ahmad Qayyum to fix the plea of Nusrat Shahbaz for adjudication by a court.
The office returned the petition with another set of four objections on May 20. The office stated that the petitioner needed to file a certified copy of the order under which her entry to Pakistan was banned.
Another objection raised by the LHC office was that the petition was not carrying a certified copy of the Supreme Court order allowing Shahbaz Sharif to return home. The third objection was that a copy of the petition had not been delivered to the attorney-general of Pakistan.
Yet another objection pertained to the veracity of the attestation of the general power of attorney which Hamza Shahbaz Sharif had for his father, mother, Nawaz Sharif and Kulsoom Nawaz.
Barrister Ahmad Qayyum removed all the objections and refiled the petition once again on May 22. All the certified copies were attached and a copy of the petition was provided to the attorney-general's office. As for Hamza's power of attorney, the counsel wrote to the office that it was duly attested by the consul-general of Pakistan at Jeddah.
According to Barrister Qayyum, the office turned down the request and returned the petition repeating objections though they had already been removed. He wrote to the office that it was engaging itself in judicial matters and passing its own judgments on law questions which was the sole prerogative of superior courts to adjudicate if a petition was maintainable or not.
