LAHORE: The mandate of returning officers came under scrutiny this week in the Lahore High Court (LHC) when National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq filed a petition objecting to Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) order allowing a returning officer to inspect election documents of NA-122 at the request of Pakistan Tehreek-i -Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan.
In his petition, Sadiq said returning officers were mandated to conduct elections. He said it was not the job of returning officers to examine election records.
ECP’s law officer told the court that the commission had the power to direct any returning officer to supervise a recount and inspection of election record.
The LHC chief justice rejected ECP’s reply. He asked how a returning officer could be retained after elections. The hearing is to resume on September 18.
Courts security
Senior police officials tried to reassure the LHC about security arrangements at court premises.
Appearing before the court, additional inspector general (investigation) and DIG operations said 11 policemen had been terminated and several subjected to disciplinary action for negligence.
They said challans of 118 cases of security lapses at court premises had been submitted in various courts.
They said trained police personnel had been deployed for courts’ security.
The bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial adjourned further hearing of the petition till September 19 and directed the police officers to come up with more details on security arrangements.
The bench also sought a report on problems faced by the Police Department after separation of operations and investigation wings.
Bhasha dam
A writ petition was filed in the Lahore High Court against the government for allegedly halting the construction of Diamir Bhasha Dam.
Advocate Chaudhry Ahmad Masood Gujjar had filed the petition. He said postponing the project would result in a loss of billions of rupees to national exchequer. He said the president had announced on January 17, 2006 the construction of the dam. He said the Council of Common Interests had unanimously approved the construction of the dam.
Luxury Tax
The matter of imposition of Luxury Tax on properties constructed on two kanals or more was also brought up before the LHC this week.
The court directed the government to explain why the tax was imposed in some areas and not across the board.
The court adjourned the hearing till September 10 on the request of the petitioner’s counsel who said a larger bench should be constituted to deal with the case.
The petitioner’s said the government had not levied the tax in many areas of the city, including Cantonment and Defence Housing Authority (DHA).
The petitioners asked the court to set aside the notices issued to them by the Excise and Taxation Department for being unconstitutional.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 9th, 2013.