PESHAWAR, Aug 28: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday directed the NWFP government not to take any adverse action against district Kohistan’s Nazim Maulana Obaidullah till the final disposal of his writ petition by the Peshawar High Court.
A single bench, comprising Justice Mian Muhammad Ajmal, also directed the high court to decide within one month the writ petition of Maulana Obaidullah, challenging the proceedings started for his removal by the NWFP government.
During the last hearing on June 30, the Supreme Court had suspended a stay order issued by the high court in favour of the Nazim and had directed that the special committee of the NWFP Assembly might continue its proceedings and place its report before the provincial assembly. However, the apex court had added that after voting on the motion for the removal of the Nazim, the final decision should not be notified.
The district Nazim was aggrieved by that order of the Supreme Court and he approached it, contending that once the voting took place on the motion, his writ petition before the high court would become useless.
Senior advocate Farouk Adam Khan appeared for the Maulana, whereas the NWFP Advocate General Barrister Jehanzeb Raheem represented the provincial government.
Mr Khan argued that three different benches of the high court had heard the writ petition, but non-one dismissed it, which proved that the points raised by the petitioner needed consideration.
He argued that finally a bench of the high court headed by the chief justice admitted the petition to full hearing and stayed the proceedings against the Nazim.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that if the June 30 order of the Supreme Court was implemented and voting took place on the motion against the Nazim then his petition before the high court would become infructuous.
He contended that the high court was apprised of this case much before it came to the NWFP Assembly, thus the court had not interfered in the affairs of the assembly, rather the assembly had interfered in the matter pending before the court, which was a violation of the assembly rules.
Mr Khan argued that they had not attacked any constitutional powers of the assembly or the government and they only requested the court to interpret section 23(2) of the NWFP Local Government Ordinance, 2001.
He requested the bench to modify its earlier order as it would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner.
Barrister Jehanzeb Raheem contended that under article 69 read with article 127 of the Constitution the proceedings before the assembly could not be called in question in any court of law.
He added that the petition of the Nazim before the high court was premature as no adverse action had yet been taken against him and the cause of action had yet to arise.
The advocate general finally agreed on behalf of the government to allow a concession to the Nazim that no adverse action would be taken against him when the special committee of the assembly placed its report before the assembly, provided the high court decided the petition within one month.
In view of the assurance given by the AG, the bench directed that no adverse action should be taken against the Nazim in the assembly for one month during which the high court should decide his writ petition.