0
KARACHI, Aug 12: A division bench of the Sindh High Court dismissed on Tuesday a petition against the purchase of 21 vehicles by the Sindh police.
M/s Afzal Motors, franchised manufacturers of Daewoo buses, had challenged the police decision as contrary to the law and rules. It claimed that it had submitted the lowest bid yet was ignored in favour of M/s Hino-Pak, who tendered a higher bid. The transaction, the petitioner alleged, was completed after the filing of the petition.
Appearing for the respondent company and the provincial police, Advocate Abid Zuberi and Additional Advocate-General Masood Noorani submitted that the specifications submitted by the successful bidder fulfilled the requirements of the police force and there was no choice. A bid could not be accepted only because it was lower and other factors had also to be considered.
They said the petition was filed after the transaction had been completed and the payment for the vehicles delivered earlier had been made. The evaluation and purchase committees followed the prescribed procedure in the vehicles’ purchase, they said.
Observing that the court could not go into the question of quality and specifications of vehicles, acting Chief Justice Azizullah M. Memon and Justice Khalid Ali Z. Qazi dismissed the petition.
Delimitation
The bench also dismissed a petition questioning delimitation of national and provincial constituencies in Larkana. Petitioner Ghulam Sarwar Sial, a candidate in the February 18 polls, submitted through Advocate Salahuddin Ahmed that the Election Commission had ignored the mandatory requirements in the delimitation of the constitution and disregarded the provisions of the Delimitation Act, 1974.
Contesting the petition, Deputy Attorney-General Amer Raza Naqvi said the petition had become infructuous as the polls for which the constituencies were demarcated had since been held. Delimitation could not be done to suit the convenience of particular individuals or candidates.
Dismissing the petition, the bench, however, observed that the petitioner was free to approach the Election Commission to agitate his grievance.
Bail for Jatoi
Ehsan Ali Khan Jatoi, brother of former federal minister Liaquat Jatoi, was granted interim bail by the bench in the sum of Rs100,000. Advocate Raja Qureshi submitted on behalf of Mr Jatoi that he had been involved in a murder case by his political rivals. The alleged incident occurred on the February 18 election eve. There was a clash between two rival groups that left one person dead. However, Mr Jatoi had nothing to do with the incident. Other accused in the case, the counsel said, had already been enlarged on bail.
Impeachment petitions
The Sindh High Court adjourned on Tuesday the hearing of a writ petition against the impeachment of the President to an unspecified date to determine its maintainability and decided to hear the stay plea along with the main petition.
Deputy Attorneys-General Ashraf Khan Mughal and Amer Raza Naqvi were present in the courtroom but were not issued a notice. Acting Chief Justice Azizullah M. Memon announced the order after hearing petitioner-lawyer Maulvi Iqbal Haider briefly at the head of a division bench consisting of himself and Justice Khalid Ali Z. Qazi.
The bench noted in its order that according to the petitioner, the ruling coalition has decided to table an impeachment motion against the President under Article 47 of the Constitution on the basis of the proclamation of emergency made on Nov 3, 2007. The perception of the petitioner was based on news reports and the court had to examine the maintainability of the petition to ascertain whether it was empowered to intervene in the matter at the stage of parliamentary investigation.
The plea for an interim injunction would also be decided on merit along with the question of maintainability.
The bench told the petitioner earlier that the case was one of first impression as there was no case law on impeachment. It required proper assistance, particularly on the question whether the court could interfere with parliamentary investigation of the charges against the President under Article 47, which empowered the parliament to take cognizance and commence an investigation.
The parliament, the bench observed, functioned under its own rules. Articles 67, 68 and 69 barred the parliament from discussing the conduct of judges and the judiciary from interfering in parliamentary proceedings.
The petitioner said the articles were subject to the Constitution and the law laid down by the Supreme Court was binding on all organs and functionaries of the state. The Nov 3, 2007, proclamation and provisional constitution order had been validated by the Supreme Court and could not be pressed as an article of impeachment against the President. He agreed that the proclamation was not the only charge and that it would be better to wait for a charge-sheet.
