PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday rejected a petition for including the Peshawar Development Authority as a respondent in the petition against a National Accountability Bureau inquiry into the alleged irregularities in the Bus Rapid Transit project.

A bench consisting of Justice Shakeel Ahmad and Justice Sahibzada Asadullah observed that if the PDA had any issues with the NAB probe, the court should be approached by it and not project contractors.

The petition was filed last year by Ch. A. Latif and Sons Limited (Calsons), which was part of a joint venture of contractors awarded the project, through directors Chaudhry Imran Latif and Amir Latif against the NAB inquiry into the alleged irregularities in the BRT project.

The court granted the two directors interim relief last year by directing the NAB to continue with the inquiry without arresting them.

Observes if PDA has issues with NAB probe, it should move court itself

The petitioners filed an application requesting the court to include the PDA as a respondent in the petition, insisting the civic agency is a necessary party to the BRT controversy because it is the executing agency of the project.

Justice Sahibzada Asadullah wondered how PDA could be made party to the petition when it didn’t approach the court.

The counsel for the petitioners said the PDA had issued different documents to his clients, and therefore, it was necessary to hear their point of view on the matter.

He said certain documents were required in the case, and they’re in the possession of the PDA.

The lawyer said the main petition challenged the NAB’s inquiry.

The bench wondered whether an inquiry could be challenged when no final order had so far been made in it.

NAB deputy prosecutor general Mohammad Ali argued that the application was meant to further delay the matter.

He said an interim relief was granted to the petitioners many months ago, and they wanted to further prolong it.

Mr Ali argued that when the PDA had not approached the high court to seek any relief, then how the petitioners could file an application for impleading it as the respondent in the case.

He pointed out that the main petition was fixed for hearing on May 23, and over an application from the bureau for an early hearing, it was fixed for May 2.

The NA deputy prosecutor said the application was filed by the petitioners to further delay proceedings.

He argued that if the petitioners considered that the PDA had certain proofs in their favour, they should produce the same during trial instead of requesting to make it party to the petition.

Mr Ali argued that it had yet to be decided whether the petition was maintainable or not.

He added that the court had to decide whether it could interfere in the matter at the stage of inquiry or not.

In the main petition, the Calsons directors requested that the court declare that the NAB has no authority or mandate to hold an inquiry or investigation into the matters of the BRT project and harass them.

They prayed the court to declare illegal the proceedings initiated by the NAB, including the inquiry and call-up notices against them.

The petitioners contended that the disputes, if any, arising out of the BRT contracts were required to be adjudicated by and decided through a three-tier redressal mechanism, including a dispute board, as per the contract agreements, and the NAB had no right to influence or cause impediment in the process of that mechanism.

Published in Dawn, April 25th, 2024