LHC seeks record of cases against Saad Rafiq

Published February 22, 2006

LAHORE, Feb 21: The Lahore High Court on Tuesday called for the record of cases against MNA Saad Rafiq for Feb 27 on a petition against his arrest. The court directed assistant advocate-general Amir Rehman to seek instructions and appear on the next hearing.

The petition filed by Ghazala Saad through Advocate Zahid Sultan submitted that Saad Rafiq was a sitting MNA and was arrested without the permission of the National Assembly Speaker during the assembly session which was unlawful.

The petitioner prayed the court to declare the act illegal and set aside the arrest order.

ETO SUMMONED: The LHC summoned the Bhakkar excise and taxation officer with the relevant record for March 15, on a petition against cancellation of registration of a vehicle.

Petitioner Ghulam Mohammad submitted that he had applied for registration of his car. The car documents were then duly verified by the authorities concerned and the vehicle was registered in his name.

However, a dispute over the car’s ownership arose later between Zafar Iqbal and the petitioner’s son. The ETO pressurised the petitioner to withdraw his claim, threatening him with dire consequences.

The petitioner stated the ETO cancelled his car’s registration without issuing a show-cause notice or providing him a chance of hearing.

He prayed to the court to set aside ETO’s order and direct him to restore the registration of his vehicle.

LEAVE TO APPEAL: A three-member full bench of the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal to an ASI on a petition challenging his removal from service.

The petition filed by ASI Iqbal Ahmad through Advocate Nasim Tariq informed that he along with another colleague was removed from service owing to negligence under E and D rules of the police department.

He stated his co-accused, constable Dost Mohammad, had been reinstated by the inspector general of police on the basis that the Punjab Removal from Services (special powers) Ordinance 2000 had been promulgated after his removal, and proceedings would be initiated again under the new ordinance.

He submitted he too should be reinstated on the same basis.—APP