KARACHI, Feb 11: The Sindh High Court ordered on Monday attachment of the immovable property of a man who forcibly took away his minor son from his divorced wife to the United States in violation of court orders.
Justice Munib Ahmed Khan also directed the federal interior ministry to contact Interpol for respondent Ghulam Mohammad Noori’s repatriation to Pakistan. A non-bailable warrant was issued for his arrest and production before the court. The judge asked the Federal Investigation Agency to explain how Noori, who holds dual citizenship of Pakistan and the US, fled with the four-year-old child despite the exit ban imposed on both following a court direction.
Petitioner Fiza Rizvi, the mother of the child, and her counsel, G. Hyder Shaikh, informed the court that the couple had married in 2001 and separated in 2003. A guardian court of Karachi granted custody of the child to the petitioner and allowed the father to meet him once a week at her lawyer’s office.
On Oct 26, 2007, when Fiza was taking the child to her lawyer’s office in Defence, Ghulam M. Noori intercepted her with three armed men and took away the child. She approached the high court, which asked Noori to restore the child’s custody to her as ordered by the guardian court. Noori was asked not to remove the child from the court’s territorial jurisdiction and the FIA was directed to put his name and that of the child on the exit control list.
According to the counsel, Noori took the child away to California where a custody case was already pending. A California court ordered Noori to arrange the child’s telephone contact with his mother in Karachi on alternate days and the direction was being followed.
The mother moved the high court for the repatriation of the child and restoration of his custody to her. On Noori’s failure to answer the summons, the court issued a non-bailable warrant for his arrest and ordered attachment of his property.
Oct 18 FIR case
Justice Yasmin Abbasy of the Sindh High Court adjourned on Monday the hearing of a criminal revision application moved by the provincial government against a sessions court’s order for the registration of slain PPP leader Benazir Bhutto’s complaint as FIR in the bomb blast case of Oct 18, 2007.
Ms Bhutto had approached the sessions court after police refusal to register a second FIR in the case. The police said her complaint could be incorporated in the FIR already registered. District and Sessions Judge Agha Rafiq Ahmed Khan (since elevated) directed the police to register Ms Bhutto’s complaint as an independent second FIR and the provincial government moved a revision application through the then acting advocate-general, Masood A. Noorani.
The high court decided to hear the application and stayed the operation of the sessions’ order. The application came up before Justice Yasmin Abbasy on Monday and she adjourned the hearing to a date in office. Advocate Adnan Karim is contesting the application on behalf of the respondent
NAB case
The Sindh High Court adjourned the hearing of a petition moved by a National Accountability Bureau accused against the institution of more references against him on the basis of some transaction involving tax rebates.
Raja Zaraat Khan, chairman of the Bawan Shah Group of Companies, says that he, along with several taxmen, had been arraigned in six references involving tax rebates on allegedly bogus exports. NAB was making further investigations to dig up more charges against him. He said under Section 17(D) of the NAB Ordinance more than one reference could not be filed on the basis of the same transaction involving the same offence and accused.
Contesting the petition, NAB deputy prosecutor-general Siddiq Mirza argued that although the alleged offences were of the same nature, they did not arise from the same transactions. The conduct of investigations was an administrative act on NAB’s part and no judicial interference was warranted as held by the Supreme Court in retired brigadier Imtiaz Ahmed’s case. In any case, it was for the trial accountability court, which had already taken cognizance, to decide how many charges or offences or transactions were involved. The aggrieved party can approach the high court in appeal or revision. The petition was not maintainable, he said, requesting the court to vacate the ad interim injunction passed by it against NAB.
The bench, which consisted of Chief Justice Mohammad Afzal Soomro and Justice Khwaja Naveed Ahmed, adjourned the case to March 15 for arguments by the petitioner’s counsel, who could not appear on Monday. The stay was extended till that date.
Direction on promotion
A division bench comprising Justices Qaiser Iqbal and Mahmood Alam Rizvi asked the central selection board to consider the case of petitioner Javed Kazi, director-general, internal audit, customs and sales tax, for promotion to grade 21 on merit and without being influenced by any observation made by it previously.
The petitioner’s counsel, Mansoorul Haq Solangi, argued that previous supersession of an officer could not be treated as a ground for a subsequent withholding of promotion.
Referring to an SHC judgment, the counsel said there was a distinction between selection posts and posts to which promotion was made on the seniority-cum-fitness basis. A suitable officer may be ignored for a selection post because a more competent junior officer might be available. Grade 21 was a selection grade and an officer ignored once could be considered subsequently.
Deputy Attorney-General Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui assured the bench that the petitioner’s case would be considered in accordance with the rules.
The petition was disposed with the direction to the CSB.
Property attached
Justice Naveed ordered the attachment of the office premises of a tent house that arranged an exhibition by a furniture designer. Plaintiff Mahnaz Malik instituted a Rs20 million damages suit against the event manager through Advocate Arshad Tayebali.
She alleged a fire at the exhibition arranged in her lawn destroyed all items on display and part of her house. The fire was caused by negligence of the event manager and she had to move out of her house. The court issued the defendant a notice and ordered the attachment of its office premises to prevent any attempt to frustrate a decree.