ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court on Monday rejected Ata Ul Haq Qasmi’s plea to change counsel in the review petition regarding illegal appointment as Managing Director Pakistan Television (PTV).
A three-member Bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Faisal Arab and Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, heard the review petition, filed by former MD PTV Ata Ul Haq Qasmi.
During the course of proceedings, Ata Ul Haq Qasmi pleaded the court to allow him to change his counsel and said that his lawyer Shahid Hamid was perturbed about some issues.
Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan remarked that according to the rules, the lawyer in the review case cannot be changed.
The court cannot allow him to change counsel in review appeal, he added.
Later, the court dismissed his appeal to change the counsel.
Advocate Salman Butt counsel for former Finance Minister Ishaq Dar also pleaded the court to make his client as party in the case.
Justice Ijaz asked where is Ishaq Dar? He is in England, Salman Butt responded. Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan remarked that Ishaq Dar could have faced the case but he did not appear before the court.
Salman Butt said that the court did not consider Ishaq Dar’s letter.
Justice Faisal Arab remarked that no request was made in this regard.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial remarked that previously nobody appeared in the case and it is emailed now, which is equivalent to humiliating the court.
This request gives the impression that a person becomes a part of the prosecution according to his will, he added.
He remarked that how court could send notice to Ishaq Dar in England as he is a temporary resident there.
Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan remarked that Ishaq Dar also approved money besides the MP1.
Salman Butt said that additional money will be given by PTV itself as it is an independent organisation. He said that his client had no link with the money.
According to the law, the Secretary was responsible for the affairs and not the Minister, he added.
Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan remarked that Ministers issued such orders that no one can raise fingers on them.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial asked the counsel that he would have to explain the court that why his client was absent from the courts.
The counsel must have to satisfy the court for final approval of his client’s application, he added.
He remarked that he would have to explain his absence from courts not only in this case but also the remaining cases.
Then the court would determine whether he was deliberately absent from the proceedings, he added.
The court sought reply from Ishaq Dar and adjourned hearing of the case till date in the office.
