KARACHI, June 20: The Sindh High Court dismissed in limine a writ petition against the sale of 26 per cent shares of the Pakistan Telecommunications Company Limited. Contesting the petition, Advocate Abdul Hafeez Pirzada argued that the sale was unimpeachable under the law and the Constitution. It was sanctioned by Article 173 of the Constitution, which empowered the government to dispose of any property vested in it subject to any law enacted by the legislature. Under a disinvestment policy adopted in 1994, an act was passed by parliament in 1996 to specifically authorize the federal government to sell its shares in the PTCL. The law, he said, extended due protection to the terms and conditions of service of the PTCL employees. The deal, including the transfer of management, was also fully protected by the Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000.
The Privatization Commission counsel recalled that 11.8 per cent shares were sold, among others to workers, for $900 million in 1992 without any legal hitch. The bidding on Monday fetched about $ 2.6 billion and raised the PTCL share’s worth from Rs 68 to Rs 117 overnight. The company’s total worth had gone up to Rs 596.7 billion, which represented a record increase and net gain to the public exchequer.
The federal government, Mr Pirzada said, still retained 62.2 per cent of the company’s shares, the value of which had increased nearly two-folds. The sale was thus legally sound and economically unexceptionable.
He cited a number of superior court judgments to assert that the petition was not maintainable.
Avocates A.S. Pirzada and Rana Ikramullah assisted him while Deputy Attorney-General Sajjad Ali Shah supported his arguments generally.
Representing the petitioners, two PTCL employees belonging to Awami Himayat Tehrik of Moulvi Iqbal Haider, Advocate Sohail Hameed argued that the PTCL revenues were part of the federal consolidated fund and all moneys comprised in the public account of the federation are to be regulated by parliament.
He referred to the Supreme Court opinion on a presidential reference seeking expenditure from the national exchequer in 1987 in the absence of the federal legislature. The court held that parliament was the custodian of the public funds to the exclusion of any other authority.
The lawyer said telecommunications, like defence, external affairs and currency, were an exclusively federal subject to be dealt with by the federal legislature and executive in their respective spheres. The federal government could not privatize these subjects or contract them out. He said all judgments cited by Mr Pirzada in support of his arguments pertained to subjects (Railways, for example) mentioned in Part II of the federal legislative list while telecommunications was specified in Part I of the list. The Privatization Commission or the cabinet committee had no right to usurp the powers of the legislature, he contended.
A division bench, comprising Justices Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Amir Hani Muslim, dismissed the petition by a short order and for reasons to be recorded later.
