LAHORE - The Lahore High Court will take up today (Thursday) an application challenging conviction of former PM Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Safdar and Muhammad Safdar in Avenfield case.

Justice Ali Akbar Qureshi will hear the application moved by Lawyers’ Foundation for Justice through Advocate AK Dogar.

Previously, Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh asked the petitioner to affix the NAB court verdict with his plea against conviction of Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Safdar and Muhammad Safdar.

Advocate Dogar in his main petition had questioned the NAB Ordinance 1999 and functioning of the courts under the law. He said the NAB court which convicted former prime minister Nawaz Sharif had no jurisdiction to decide the matter as the law under which it had been functioning had lapsed long ago. He pleaded the high court to suspend the operation of the accountability court’s decision as the court had been functioning under a non-extent law. Former military dictator retired Gen Pervez Musharraf promulgated the NAB ordinance to arrest the politicians. He said Musharraf took the charge in October  while the NAB law came in November—just one month—in order to curb the politicians.  The lawyer argued Under Article 270-AA of the Constitution through 18th amendment, the PCO No.1 of 1999 was declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. He contended that  the NAB ordinance 1999 contends that the ordinance was promulgated by then military dictator/president retired Gen Pervez Musharraf under Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) No.1 of 1999 as well as order No.9 of 1999. Order No.9, he said, was promulgated only to amend PCO No.1 of 1999 with the insertion of section 5A (1) in it to the effect that limitation of 120 days prescribed under Article 89 of the Constitution to any ordinance by the president will not be applicable to the laws made under PCO No.1 of 1999. The lawyer contended that as the PCO No.1 was declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect, the amendments in it made underorder No.9 of 1999 would also lapse and therefore, the limitation period of 120 days prescribed under Article 89 would be applicable to the NAB ordinance.  The lawyer said certain laws which were still enforced, shall continue to remain enforced unless amended by the competent legislation under sub-article 2 of Article 270-AA of the Constitution. He prayed to the court to the NAB ordinance ceased to be the law and had become non-existent and a dead letter. He also prayed to the court to set aside all those proceedings being carried out by the NAB courts under the dead law of NAB ordinance.

PML-N moves LHC against police

PML-N approached the Lahore High Court against non-cooperative attitude of police for not providing FIRs registered against its leaders and workers ahead of arrival of its supremo former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Safdar at Lahore airport.

PML-N Lahore Chapter President Pervez Malik  filed the petition through PML-N Lawyers’ Forum President Nasir Ahmad Bhutta and submitted that police had refused to provide FIRs registered against  workers and leaders of the party.

He alleged that police had also been harassing them. The petitioner said not only the police registered cases against them but inserted sections of anti-terrorism laws into these cases. He  said they approached the police officials for provisions of FIRs registered against the party workers but they did not cooperate with them. He said such lethargic attitude of police and non-cooperative behavior was against the law.

He asked the court to order the police to provide copies of the FIRs to the party workers.

Court dismisses petitions against PHC CRACKDOWN ON quacks

The Lahore High Court dismissed petition against Punjab Healthcare Commission and termed its action lawful against the quacks in Punjab.   A single bench comprising Justice Ayesha A. Malik announced a 29-page verdict on petition moved by Punjab Dental Practitioners Association against the powers of Punjab Healthcare Commission and appeals of the Commission against a sessions court’s decision wherein its powers to seal quacks’ clinics were set aside.  Justice Ayesha held that the main objective of the healthcare commission besides regulating healthcare and clinical governance is the public safety and public health. 

The judge restrained the unregistered petitioners and members of the association from practicing dentistry.  The judge also held that healthcare commission’s action against those who are not registered under  the Unani Act and fall under the definition of quack under the Health Act , is valid and based on fact.

The judge also ruled that any matter which compromises the health and care of a person must be stopped. Justice Ayesha dismissed the petition of association’s members and allowed the commission’s appeal against the sessions court’s order by upholding the powers of the commission to seal the clinics of quacks.

Punjab Dental Practitioners Association through their petition had questioned the powers of the commission to seal the clinics,  submitting that the commission should not illegally harass the members of the association.

 

They said all those registered under Unani Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic Practitioner Act, 1965 (Unani Act) be allowed  to practice as dental technicians and dental hygienists, if they have appropriate diploma by the Skill Development Council.

Additional Advocate General Anwaar Hussain opposed the petition, saying that a statute unless was declared to be unconstitutional was presumed as constitutionally correct. He said Punjab Healthcare Commission works within the domain of the provincial government and it aimed to improve performance and quality of healthcare by taking action against the quacks. He argued that consequently all the service provides and establishment had to be regulated at the provincial level and could not be regulated at a federal level.  He pleaded the court to set aside the petitions challenging the powers of the commission.

The commission, on the other hand, had also challenged the decision of a session court of Toba Tek Singh wherein it was held that the commission had no powers under the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010 to seal a healthcare establishment and its decision to seal clinics of quacks was also set aside.

 

However, Justice Ayesha, after hearing both sides, turned down the petitions moved against the powers of the commission and upheld its powers by allowing its appeal against the decision of a sessions court.