Islamabad:
A new controversy has surfaced on the reconstruction of the bench at the High Court of Islamabad (IHC), with judge Mohin Akhtar Kayani, a larger bench led by auditory quotas, replaced by a new panel.
The former bench also included judge Babar Sattar and judge Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and had held a hearing for the last time on March 6, fixing on April 10 at the next date.
According to the IHC website, the new wider bench was formed under the acting chief judge Sarfraz Dogar and includes judge Khadim Hussain Soomro and judge Inaam Amin Minhas.
The last shuffle is part of a series of bench changes observed by the court in recent months.
In particular, judge Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan also heard an outrageous case in the court against the Superintendent of Adiala prison for having rejected the meetings with the founding president of the PTI, Imran Khan.
During the hearing, the Superintendent Ghafoor Anjum had asked that the cases linked to the meetings of Imran Khan and the accusations of outrage be grouped.
The acting CJ DOGAR subsequently constituted a larger bench of three members and eliminated the cases with instructions. However, judge Ejaz Ishaq Khan initiated a procedure distinct from contempt for Suo Motu which remains in progress.
On Wednesday, the High Court of Islamabad (IHC) suspended on Wednesday the notices of justification of the contempt of the court issued to the director general (DG) of immigration and passports and a director of the NAB, while requesting the complete file of the request in short and of the procedure of contempt for the Court of Justice Babar Sattar.
A bench of two members comprising the acting chief judge Sarfraz Dogar and judge Muhammad Asif made the suspension order after hearing a appeal filed by DG Immigration and Passports.
The court noted that the objection on the appeal had been deleted and ordered that the case was resolved to hear the same day.
The Outline’s notice was previously published by a single bench as part of a petition requesting the deletion of a name from the exit control list (ECL).
According to the lawyer, the court had not only granted provisional compensation, but provided for a final repair suspended the order to place the name of the petitioner on the list of non-vol.
The lawyer argued that the CEO of immigration and passports had acted at the request of NAB and did not arbitrarily include the name of the petitioner in the ECL. He argued that the notice of service provision for the benefit of the Creation published in immigration and passports of the DG was therefore illegal.
The IHC bench observed that the reasons raised in the appeal were worthy of consideration and issued opinions to all parties, seeking their answers. He also ordered the Bureau of the Tribunal to join the complete file of the request in short and an outrage procedure in the appeal file.
The initial opinion of outrage had been issued by judge Babar Sattar on the repeated non-compliance of judicial orders concerning the referral of the name of the petitioner of the non-theft list, allegedly added to NAB’s recommendation.
