LAHORE, Jan 8: Proceedings on a petition challenging the recent Supreme Court appointments came to a sudden halt in the Lahore High Court on Tuesday when the petitioner disowned it as well as his signature on the power of attorney and a division bench dismissed it on that short ground.

Advocate AK Dogar, counsel for the petitioner, Pakistan Lawyers Form, was half way through his arguments when Advocate Nisar A Mujahid interrupted the proceedings to inform the bench comprising Justices Chaudhry Ijaz Ahmad and Mian Saqib Nisar that he had resigned as PLF secretary-general about six months ago and that his signature on the power of attorney and the affidavit attached to it had not been affixed by him.

Mr Dogar said the secretary general had tendered his resignation but it was not accepted. A new affidavit sworn by another advocate, a PLF member, had already been attached. As for the power of attorney, he had Mujahid’s consent, which was sufficient under the law. In any case, he was prepared to substitute himself as a petitioner on behalf of the PLF or on his own as he did in the Supreme Court, before the registration of the forum. Mr Dogar said there was something ‘fishy’ about Mujahid’s conduct and it should not be allowed to mar solemn proceedings on a public interest petition.

The bench took a serious view of the matter. It observed that at worst it was a case of forgery involving forged signature of a lawyer and at best of a complete absence of any petition to proceed with. Sine the petitioner had disowned the petition, the court had nothing before it to adjudicate.

Attorney-General Makhdoom Ali Khan, who was present with his team of four Lahore-based deputy attorneys-general, also called for dismissal of the petition and the court terminated the proceedings with a short dismissal order.

Mr Dogar earlier argued that the rule of seniority was applicable with equal force to Supreme Court appointments. Citing the relevant Pakistan and Indian Supreme Court judgments, he said junior judges could not be elevated without specifying reasons why the chief justice and senior judges had to be ignored. He particularly relied on Justice Ajmal Mian’s judgment in the Judges Case to emphasize the vital importance of a uniform and self-operative appointment criterion to the independence of the judiciary.