LAHORE, April 9: A division bench of the Lahore High Court is likely to pronounce its judgment on an intra-court appeal challenging the Legal Framework Order (LFO), on Thursday (today).
The bench had reserved the judgment last Friday and allowed the petitioner A.K. Dogar to submit additional arguments in writing.
Justice Javed Buttar had turned down the petitioner’s prayer for striking down the LFO last year. The petitioner filed an intra-court appeal with the division bench, challenging the verdict.
In his arguments, the petitioner opposed the three-year increase in the superannuation age of superior courts judges, reintroduction of Article 58(2-b), the proposed National Security Council and Gen Pervez Musharraf’s assumption of the offices of the COAS and the president under the LFO.
Meanwhile, a full bench of the Supreme Court adjourned until April 14 the proceedings on an appeal of Dr Ahmad Javed Khwaja and Ahmad Naveed Khwaja against their detention.
The proceedings were adjourned without any progress since the petitioners’ counsel Hamid Khan had joined the lawyers’ strike in protest of the war in Iraq.
POL prices: The Lahore High Court on Wednesday disposed of a petition, along with another dozen related applications, challenging periodical increase in petroleum prices announced by the regulatory authorities during the last quarter.
The court disposed of the petitions with an observation that prayer had borne fruit, as the respondents had reduced the prices of the petroleum products last week.
Deputy Attorney General M Pervez Akhtar submitted in court that petroleum prices’ regulatory authorities had recently announced a noticeable cut in the prices. Therefore, he said, the petitions had become infructuous. He also argued that keeping in view the current international oil market situation, the petroleum prices were likely to go down further in the country.
Petitioner M D Tahir, however, argued that court should decide the matter on its merit because cut in petroleum prices had been followed by immediate raises in the past, and the matter must be settled once for all.
The current reduction in the oil prices should not be considered a permanent relief, he said, pointing out that there was no assurance whether the current price level would sustain even for another month.
The court rejected this argument, saying the petitioner could challenge the future increase in petroleum prices through another petition, and his right to this extent was still intact.