LAHORE, Sept 29: The Lahore High Court on Monday refused to hear lengthy arguments of Pakistan Lawyers’ Forum President A K Dogar in a review petition filed against the provision of luxuries to the public functionaries.

The full bench, headed by Justice Tassaduq Husain Jilani, turned down the petitioner’s request to give him six hours to conclude his submissions, and directed him to confine himself to one-hour long arguments on Tuesday (today).

The court observed that it was already seized of numerous cases and couldn’t afford to spend much public time on one petition only.

Following this observation, Mr Dogar submitted that if the court was not willing to grant him time he had demanded for concluding his arguments, he would press the court to decide the question on the basis of the partly completed arguments as to whether the petition did merit the issuance of notice to the state.

“It is unfortunate that I am being deprived of my right to argue the case at length. If the court doesn’t deem it appropriate, I would like to consult the PLF members as to whether I should argue this petition further within the time limits imposed by the court,” he protested at the court observation, fearing that his petition would be dismissed in limine and this decision would create tension between the bar and bench.

However, Justice Jilani dispelled his fears by ruling that the petitioner should remember that each of his argument would be given full consideration, and if the court felt that there was substance in his submissions, the state would be put under notice without any further delay.

“You should consider the limitations of the court regarding the number of cases it has to hear in a limited time. We have complete faith in your skills to conclude your arguments within an hour,” the judge observed.

This review petition had been filed against the verdict of a division bench, which had dismissed his petition assailing the luxurious way of living of the government officials, including the president, prime minister, governors, chief ministers and the army officials.

The division bench had dismissed this petition on a ruling that it was a matter of life style and based on personal perceptions. No constitutional or legal question was raised in the petition and the court did not have the jurisdiction to issue any directions to the state in this regard. “The court is not a proper platform to take up this petition.”

Earlier, during his preliminary arguments, Mr Dogar submitted that his petition was not based on personal perceptions, but it had invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the court regarding a very serious matter — lavish spending of public exchequer towards the provisions of facilities to the public office holders.

The arguments raised in his previous petition, he said, were not incorporated by the division bench in its judgment and the petition had been misunderstood as an academic exercise beyond the judicial scope concerning social values. At least the state should have been asked to respond to this petition in order to make a balanced comparison, which did not happen, he argued.

To a court query as to how could it ban the provision of palatial furnished houses and fleets of officially maintained cars to the public functionaries, the petitioner claimed, it had the jurisdiction to do so as the Indian judiciary had done the same thing in early 1980s.

He further contended that it had been assured in the 1973 Constitution that the Pakistani society would be an egalitarian society in which every individual would have equal rights and opportunities.

“The courts have the authority not only to implement the constitution, but also to evolve schemes for the policy matters. The current petition is not a policy matter, but a constitutional one requiring the interference of the court.”