2006 PLP 3028 (YLR)
N/A
| Citation | 2006 PLP 3028 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, J |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order (17 of 1977) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 3028 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order (17 of 1977) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 3028 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 3028 (YLR) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.B. Zaman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Abdul Manan, Deputy Attorney General, Maqbul Ilahi Malik, Advocate-General, Punjab, Najam-uz-Zaman, A.A.-G., Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, A.A.-G., Ch. Muhammad Yameen, Advocate and Muhammad Inam Khan Advocate.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 4(2) & (3) (a)
Reference to Special Court by the President of Pakistan
Allegation against respondent, who was Federal Minister for Petroleum and Natural Resources, was that; he allowed payment of Rs. 7.635 Millions to a Civil Engineering Firm in connection with two contracts regarding a project by re-opening a closed transaction as said firm had already received certain amounts in full and final settlement of its claim and the matter was pending adjudication before the Wafaqi Mohtasib
Decision to make payment of disputed amount was taken in the meeting of the Board of Directors presided over by respondent and was not taken by him in his individual capacity
No blame, in circumstances, could legitimately be placed upon respondent for taking that decision as if it was not taken by him individually
Neither specific allegation was levelled in the reference nor any material was placed on record to the effect that respondent pressurized the members of the Board of Directors for taking said decision particularly in the absence of any plea to the effect that decision was motivated by a desire on the part of respondent to acquire personal gain
Charge against accused having not been established, reference was returned as contemplated by Art.4(3) (a) of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977 to referring authority. M.B. Zaman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Abdul Manan, Deputy Attorney General, Maqbul Ilahi Malik, Advocate-General, Punjab, Najam-uz-Zaman, A.A.-G., Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, A.A.-G., Ch. Muhammad Yameen, Advocate and Muhammad Inam Khan Advocate.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
This reference under Article 4(2) of the President's (Post-Proclamation) Order No.17, Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership), Order, 1977 has been made against Mr. Jehangir Radar, Ex-Federal Minister for Petroleum and Natural Resources.
2. I have heard preliminary arguments of Mr. M.B. Zaman, learned counsel for the referring authority and examined in detail the material placed on record with his assistance.
3. The allegation against the respondent is that he allowed payment of Rs.7.635 Millions to ABEL i.e. a Civil Engineering Firm of Lahore in connection with two contracts regarding Quetta Gas Pipeline Project and Indus Right Bank Pipeline Project by re-opening a past and closed transaction as the said Firm had already received certain amounts in full and final settlement of its claim, and while the matter was pending adjudication before the Wafaqi Mohtasib.
4. From the material placed on the record, it is clear that the decision to make payment of the disputed amount to the said firm was taken in the meeting of the Board of Directors presided over by the respondent and not by him in his individual capacity. As such no blame can legitimately be placed upon the respondent for taking that decision as if taken by him individually. It may be pertinently added that the above conclusion finds further support from the absence of any specific allegation in the reference and the material on the record to the effect that the respondent pressurized the members of the Board of Directors for taking the said decision and in particular from the absence of any plea to the effect that the said decision was motivated by a desire on the part of the respondent to acquire personal gain.
5. In the context of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the charge cannot be established. I accordingly return the reference as contemplated by Article 4(3)(a) of the President's (Post-Proclamation) Order No.17, to the referring authority. H.B.T./R-46/L Order accordingly.