KARACHI: The Sindh High Court on Tuesday issued notices to the finance division, State Bank of Pakistan and others on a petition challenging the extension in the tenure of the chief executive officer of the House Building Finance Company (HBFC).
A petition was filed against reappointment of CEO/managing director of HBFC Imran Ahad as the petitioner submitted that he was initially appointed for three years in April 2021 and last month, another three-year extension was granted in violation of relevant laws and rules.
A two-judge bench, headed by Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput, put the respondents as well as a federal law officer on notice for September 3.
Citing the federal finance secretary, SBP, chairman board of directors as well as head of human resource management of HBFC and Mr Ahad as respondents, petitioner Mian Abdul Qadeer submitted that he was a retired employee of HBFC and seeking to ensure that all affairs of HBFC be conducted in fair and transparent manner.
Bench issues notices to SBP, finance division
He contended that despite not fulfilling the proper criteria and requisite educational qualifications, Mr Ahad was appointed as MD/CEO of HBFC through an order passed on April 19, 2021 for three years in violation of the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules 2023 and SECP guidelines 2015.
The petitioner also argued that during the first appointment, the illegalities and massive corruption were highlighted by way of misuse of resources, premature clearance of bills to contractors, miss-procurement and irregular appointments in the audit report of 2021-22 and the same also questioned the appointment of private respondent.
He further maintained that technically, after the expiry of the three-year term, the post of CEO became vacant and required to be filled through the process as mentioned in the laws and rules as well as guidelines of SECP.
However, the petitioner alleged that the chairman board of directors of HBFC in connivance with Mr Ahad had issued the impugned order on April 19, 2024 illegally, approving the extension of latter for further three years without following due process as required under the relevant laws and rules.
He also argued that the impugned order was issued in clear violation of Section 187 of the Companies Act, 2019 and Section 18 of State-Owned Enterprises (Governance & Operations) Act, 2023 as well as relevant rules and guidelines.
The petitioner was also of the view that the law provided for appointment of the CEO after completion of due process, but subject extension was self-creation of the chairman of the board of directors for alleged illegal gain and ulterior motives.
In the instant case, he submitted that neither the specified procedure was adopted nor the concurrence of the government was acquired for such extension which was even otherwise illegal and had no legal sanction anywhere in the law.
The petitioner asked that the SHC declare the impugned order of extension illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and of no legal effect and consequence as well as to set aside the same.
He also pleaded for directive in respect of recovery of salaries, perks and privileges availed by the private respondent from the date of his initial appointment.
The petitioner further sought an interim restraining order to suspend the impugned order till the final disposal of the petition.
However, after a preliminary hearing, the bench in its order said, “Let notice be issued to the respondents as well as DAG [deputy attorney general] for 03.09.2024”.
Published in Dawn, May 22nd, 2024
