ISLAMABAD- The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Friday turned down a writ petition challenging the appointment of former Supreme Court judge Justice (retd) Sheikh Azmat Saeed as chairman of one-man Inquiry Commission for Broadsheet scam. A single bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Athar Minallah conducted hearing of the petition filed by a lawyer Saleemullah Khan in person and dismissed the same. The petitioner prayed that this petition be fixed before Justice Jehangiri or Justice Babar Sattar.
Justice Athar noted in his verdict that previously, in his personal cases he had raised unjust objections on other benches. Now, he has requested that his cases be fixed before one of the two judges who were recently elevated.
“It is noted that neither a petitioner nor an enrolled Advocate has the privilege nor can claim a right to ask for fixation of his cases before a Bench of his choice. Such forum shopping, without a valid reason or justification, is not in consonance with the principles of administration of justice,” said the IHC Chief Justice.
He added that in the petition in hand, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of Justice (retd) Sheikh Azmat Saeed as Commission by the Federal Government in exercise of powers conferred under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 2017.
The IHC bench observed that the petitioner, who is also an enrolled advocate of this court, cannot be granted a privilege to demand that his cases be fixed before a bench of his choice.
The petitioner was asked to argue his case but he refused without giving any valid reason. It noted that Rule 166 of Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1973 declares that, “it is the duty of advocates to appear in Court when a matter is called and if it is so possible to make satisfactory alternative arrangements”.
It continued that as noted above, the petitioner refused to argue his case and allowing forum shopping without a valid justification would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The bench further said that the jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 199 of the Constitution is discretionary. The conduct of the petitioner is not reasonable nor can he be extended the privilege to insist upon fixation of his case before particular benches, without a just and valid reason.
The court order maintained, “For the above reasons, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extra ordinary discretion vested under Article 199 of the Constitution. The petition is, therefore, accordingly dismissed in limine.”