MUZAFFARABAD: The Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) High Court on Monday took up a petition by the main opposition, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), challenging all orders passed by Prime Minister Chaudhry Abdul Majeed between February 23 and March 3 “in violation of the AJK’s Interim Constitution Act, 1974, Rules of Business, 1985 and other relevant laws and rules”.

After preliminary hearing, the six-member larger bench, led by Chief Justice Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, issued notices to the government to submit a parawise reply to the petition by or on March 21, which is the next date of hearing.

The petition has been jointly filed by 11 out of 12 PML-N legislators in AJK Assembly, and eight lawyers with visible leanings towards the PML-N.

It arrayed Prime Minister Majeed and 16 other government officials as the respondents.

Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Justice Munir Ahmed Chaudhry, Chief Secretary Khizar Hayat Gondal, IGP Malik Khuda Bakhsh Awan and three other officers, two of them removed by the government from the posts of secretary, were arrayed as pro forma respondents.

Referring to the events before and after the by-election of February 22 in Baloch constituency, the petitioners maintained that the deployment of the Rangers personnel was facilitated by the chief secretary on the repeated directives of the CEC, and alleged that the prime minister had tried his best to manipulate the election and obtain favourable results.

“However, it was thwarted by the chief secretary and IGP who ensured, instead, that the process of the consolidation of result was conducted in free, fair and impartial manner.”

“Upon their refusal, the prime minister started condemning and humiliating the duo by levelling uncalled for allegations of misconduct against them” besides asking them to cease functioning immediately and report to the Establishment Division, the petitioners maintained.

They also cited some postings and transfers as well as amendments and insertions in the Rules of Business 1985, “made with mala fide intentions and ulterior objectives to protect all illegal acts performed, severally or jointly, by the respondents.”