PESHAWAR, Oct 26: The Peshawar High Court on Thursday reinstated the nazim of Lakki Marwat tehsil who was removed by the provincial government last year over a petty issue.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Ijazul Hassan and Justice Ijaz Afzal Khan accepted a writ petition filed by the nazim, Fareedullah Minakhel, and set aside the order of the then NWFP chief minister issued on July 3, 2006, through which the nazim was removed because he had installed a plaque at a stadium.

Advocate Muhammad Arif Khan appeared for the petitioner and contended that the act of the provincial government was based on mala fide intentions. He added that the petitioner was removed on the recommendations of the NWFP local government commission, which had conducted a partial inquiry.

The counsel contended that the petitioner was suspended by the government on April 5, 2006 following which he approached the court. He added that later on two members of the commission conducted a so-called inquiry and their recommendations were not based on facts.

The petitioner claimed that a sports complex was constructed in Lakki Marwat, which was mostly funded by the federal government and partially funded by the provincial government. He stated that on March 8, 2006 the district government had arranged a ceremony wherein the local MPA, Anwer Kamal Marwat, inaugurated the complex and a plaque carrying his name was fixed there.

The petitioner claimed that former chief minister Akram Khan Durrani got infuriated over the inauguration and he ordered the concerned DCO to fix his plaque instead of Mr Kamal.

The authorities, he said, replaced the plaque overnight.

He said that the inhabitants of the area got infuriated on that act and they took out a procession and removed the plaque of the chief minister.

The petitioner’s counsel stated that the nazim was suspended and a show cause notice was issued where in it was alleged that he had attended an illegal meeting convened when Salim Saifullah Khan got elected as senator. He said that he was also charged with leading a mob towards the office of the DCO.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the said inauguration ceremony was arranged by the district government and the petitioner got nothing to do with it. He argued that the petitioner had instead tried to pacify the enraged protesters.