LAHORE, Nov 16: The Lahore High Court on Friday issued notices to the attorney-general of Pakistan and the advocate-general of the Punjab on a constitutional petition challenging the validity of several provisions of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, for being repugnant to the equality clause of the Constitution.
The petitioners, four Nazims and one Naib Nazim of Sheikhupura union council, submitted through advocates Abid Husain Chattha and Shakilur Rehman Khan that they have been subjected to discrimination by the ordinance.
While the district, town and tehsil Nazims and Naib Nazims are removable, externally, by higher bodies like the provincial assembly and, internally, by councils which elected them, the union council Nazims, can be voted out by village and neighbourhood councils, the lowest tier of the local government.
The provisions place the union councils and their Nazims at the mercy of village and neighbourhood councillors, who may exert undue pressure on them. The union councils themselves have no say in the matter.
The petitioners said though the village and neighbourhood councils are yet to be elected, the provisions are inherently discriminatory and liable to be struck down on that score.
Justice Chaudhry Ijaz Ahmad, who heard the petition, directed that notices be issued to the federal and provincial law officers.
ADJOURNED: The hearing of the writ petition moved by Advocate Ismail Qureshy in 1994 for a complete ban on cigarette advertisements on behalf of the Chest Foundation was again adjourned on Friday for January 14.
Justice Maulavi Anwarul Haq directed that the petition would be heard from day to day from the next date.
LAWYER’S NOTICE: Advocate M. D. Tahir has issued a legal notice to the Prisons DIG for misconstruing a court order to ban his entry to the province’s jails. He said the court order allowing him to inspect jails and submit reports on conditions prevailing there was still in force.
Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday only banned publication of his reports on jails but that could not be interpreted as a ban on his visits. He asked the DIG to let him know why he has asked jail superintendents across the province to bar his entry to prisons. The lawyer reserved his right to sue the DIG for contempt of court.