February 28, 2006	Tuesday	Muharram 29, 1427

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

ISLAMABAD, Feb 27: Hadi Bakhsh Jatoi, a close relative of a federal minister, and Fakhar-i-Azam, brother of the NWFP law minister, on Monday tendered unconditional apology before a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court for having violated the ban on serving meals at wedding parties.

Mr Jatoi had served meal at a marriage ceremony in Hyderabad’s Niaz Stadium.

“We will not close this issue till the apex court’s judgment banning serving of meals on marriages is implemented in letter and spirit,” Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry observed while fixing April 17 for next hearing of the matter.

The bench which includes Justice Faqir Khokhar and Justice Shakirullah, is hearing public complaints against violation of its order banning meals in wedding parties.

On the last hearing the court had issued bailable warrant against Director General Health, Sindh, Hadi Bakhsh Jatoi in the sum of Rs50,000. He was reported to have served meal at a ceremony held in Hyderabad’s Niaz Stadium on December 17, last year. The ceremony was also attended by Federal Minister for Water and Power Liaquat Ali Jatoi.

The respondent appeared before the court and tendered an unqualified apology, saying that being a government servant he could not think of violating laws.

The court, however, declined to take a lenient view and directed the subordinate court trying Mr Jatoi in the case to expedite the trial. The contempt proceedings against him in the Supreme Court will remain pending.

The bench also issued contempt of court notices to 129 peoples in the NWFP who had violated the law and were now facing cases in subordinate courts.

The bench had also asked Attorney General Makhdoom Ali Khan to obtain details about the secretary of the Garrison Club, Kohat, where a wedding ceremony had been hosted by Fakhr-i-Azam.

The AG, however, sought time to procure the details. The bench was informed that the DCO Kohat had submitted a challan before the magistrate concerned, who returned the case with observations that prosecution was not possible unless the name of the caretaker of the club was disclosed.