ISLAMABAD: Attorney General Irfan Qadir on Thursday submitted a reply in response to the Supreme Court's notice which was issued to him over the controversy relating to allegations of a Rs342 million business deal between Arsalan Iftikhar, son of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, and property tycoon Malik Riaz, DawnNews reported.

The attorney general’s five-page-long reply was submitted in the Supreme Court registrar's office today.

In his reply, Qadir, who had on June 14 been mandated to “set the machinery of the state in motion” in order to bring to book “all those who may have committed any illegal act,” stated that there was no conflict of interest in the execution of his duties as the attorney general.

The reply further stated that he (the attorney general) was not representing any party in the case but was simply assisting the apex court.

Qadir said he had not committed any wrongdoing and that he had not exceeded from the mandate assigned to him by the court.

He said that as the attorney general he had not favoured any party and had only responded to legal points brought up by the bench.

Qadir said the Supreme Court had directed him to “set the machinery of the state in motion” in the case, adding that, he had done nothing that could benefit Malik Riaz.

He added that he had spoken on record that a fair trial should be conducted in the case.

The attorney general, however, raised objection to the commission formed by the court to investigate the controversy.

Qadir said he was amazed as to "how the judges thought of Shoaib Suddle" to lead the investigation.

On Aug 30, the Supreme Court had, in its ruling on the Arsalan’s review petition against its own order, criticised the attorney general for hiding the fact that he had appeared as counsel for Malik Riaz in the past and said the court would not have tasked him with any responsibility in this matter had he disclosed this.

The verdict had stated: “It is disturbing to see that the AG chose to write the letter to the NAB chairman for probing the matter by overstepping the remit of court’s June 14 order. Besides, there is a reasonable and well founded prima facie basis for the petitioner’s allegation that the AG did not act fairly and impartially.”