KARACHI, Nov 21: The Sindh High Court adjourned on Friday the hearing of a writ petition moved by the Meat Merchants Welfare Association to Dec 3 at the request of the respondent city government.
As the petition came up for hearing before a division bench, comprising Justices Zahid Kurban Alavi and Zia Perwez, city government counsel Manzoor Ahmed stated that he received a notice and copy of the petition only on Thursday and required time to seek instructions from his client and submit detailed comments on its behalf.
The bench inquired from him about the authority of law under which the city government was fixing prices restricting the operation of market forces. Advocate Ahmed said the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977, empowered the municipal government to fix prices of 62 items. Beef and mutton were listed among the items amenable to price fixation by the municipal authorities. Besides, the city government had done little beyond notifying the prevailing market prices. Accepting his request, the bench adjourned the hearing after his brief submissions.
The petitioner association has assailed the city government decision as arbitrary inasmuch as no steps had been taken to ensure cattle supply at reasonable rates. It also described the action as discriminatory as no action had been taken by the city government to control prices of other items of human consumption. Only one segment (meat sellers) of a particular trade had been subjected to price fixation in isolation from the ground realities, the petitioner’s counsel, K.A. Wahab argued.
MPs’ SALARIES: The bench, meanwhile, dismissed in limine a writ petition challenging parliament’s decision to enhance salaries, perks and privileges of its members. The petition was moved by Maulvi Iqbal Haider of Awami Himayat Tehrik through Advocate Sohail Hameed.
Arguing for admission of the petition, the lawyer contended that the salaries had been doubled at a time when the common man was facing acute economic problems. The utility bills and prices of essential items were going up day by day. He described the decision as “arbitrary”.
The bench asked the lawyer how could an Act of Parliament be described as “arbitrary”. The judiciary, it observed, functioned within a constitutional framework. Parliament has authority to enact laws and enactment of a law was not an exercise of a discretionary power. The role of legislature in fiscal matters was particularly crucial.