KARACHI, June 15: The Sindh High Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing of a petition against proposed privatization of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited till June 20 on the request of Privatization Commission of Pakistan. SHC’s division bench, comprising Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Justice Amir Hani Muslim, was hearing the constitutional petition of Atique Hussain and Iqbal Qureshi, employees of PTCL and officials of Awami Himayat Tahreek (Labour division) who challenged the proposed privatization of the entire PTCL by the Ministry of Communications and Privatization Commission of Pakistan.

The court earlier adjourned the hearing till June 16 due to paucity of time but senior advocate Abdul Hafeez Pirzada appeared before the court and submitted that he had been appointed by the Privatization Commission to contest this matter.

He told the court that he had attended previous court proceedings, which was also adjourned for want of time.

He said it would be difficult for him to appear before the court on Thursday due to his engagement in Supreme Court and requested adjournment.

The adjournment request was strongly opposed by petitioner’s counsel Sohail Hameed, submitting that Mr Pirzada had no locus standi to appear before court and seek adjournment as till yet notice was not issued to him by the court.

He submitted that the PTCL is going to be privatized on June 18 and if the court did not hear the case before June 18, the petition will be infructuous.

He prayed the court to restrain the government from carrying out privatization process of PTCL.

Mr Hameed said that the privatization of the PTCL is in violation of the Constitution as no amendment can be made on matters enumerated in the Federal List, which is subject to the legislation by Majlis-i-Shoora (Parliament).

He told the court that a tax-based system was being introduced in the country to generate revenue and for this purpose Rs690 billion tax target was projected in the fiscal budget in which Rs474 billion would be collected through indirect taxation.

He contended that the privatization of the PTCL would not only put an extra burden of taxes on people but this exercise would also deprive PTCL workers of their fundamental rights, guaranteed under the Constitution.

The court, turning down plea for stay in privatization process of the PTCL, observed that only bidding process is going to be undertaken on June 18 and adjourned the matter till June 20.—PPI

PLEA BARGAIN: The Sindh High Court suspended the trial of an accused who had entered plea bargain

Advocate Shafi Mohammadi submitted on behalf of accused applicant Shamim Alimuddin Pathan that despite being an innocent purchaser, she was implicated in the Alliance Motors reference for being in possession a residential property belonging to the liquidated company.

However, she was exempted from personal appearance and her plea bargain was accepted by the NAB chairman in December 2004.

While Mrs Pathan was allowed exemption, the trial accountability court ordered that her counsel should continue to appear on every date. Advocate Shafi Mohammadi submitted that the court order meant substitution of an accused by his or her counsel, which was illegal. There was no point in the counsel’s appearance after his client’s discharge under plea bargain, he submitted.

The NAB counsel submitted that the plea bargain and discharge papers were awaiting final acceptance and signatures. The applicant and her counsel would be discharged when the formality had been completed, which would not take much time.

A division bench, comprising Justices Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Amir Hani Muslim, suspended the trial of the accused in the reference.

In another NAB case, meanwhile, the bench appointed Advocate Nisar A. Mujahid to plead the case of Dr A Q Alavi, former consultant to the market committee of the city’s new fruit and vegetable market. All other accused had since been granted bail and the bench had ordered the jail authorities to produce Dr Alavi to ascertain why he had failed to seek bail.

Dr Alavi appeared on Wednesday and tried to argue in favour of his innocence. The bench observed that it was for the prosecution to prove his guilt and advised him to engage a counsel.

He said he could not hire a lawyer and the bench asked Advocate Mujahid to argue Dr Alavi’s case.