Is it FBR chief’s duty to save corrupt officials, asks SC

KARACHI: The Supreme Court on Monday took exception to filing of a review petition by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) with regard to initiation of proceedings against Board’s officials in containers’ tracking contracts case and observed that whether the FBR chairman’s work is only to protect the corrupt officials.

During hearing the review petition, a three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa questioned if the only purpose of government department was to protect its corrupt officers.

The court observed that the FBR was being paid from public money, adding that it may call the FBR chairman to inquire as to why the revenue collector wanted to protect the corrupt officers. The court directed the FBR to initiate proceedings against corrupt officers, asking as to why the Board came to the court to save its corrupt officials.

The court also took exception over filing of unnecessary review application and dismissed the application. The court also directed office to send the copy of order to the FBR and finance department with direction to not file such applications in future which wasted the court time.

It is pertinent to mention that the Sindh High Court had earlier cancelled the contract with regard to fixation of tracking device on containers and ordered initiation of proceedings against officials involved in corruption and issuing contract in violation of the law.

The court also dismissed review petition against the cancellation of land allotment auction in Paposh Nagar and observed that amenity land could only be used for public purpose and bus terminal land is the property of Karachi people.

Hearing petition against cancellation of land allotment, the court observed that properties are manipulated and even the government officials are in their (manipulators) pockets.

The court observed that government has right to recall the auction of land decision. The court observed that if the government was using its powers for the benefit of the people than it was fine but if they used it for personal benefits than it would be a different matter.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the Sindh government had abolished the transport corporation and decided to auction the 2,000 square yards plot in Paposh Nagar in which petitioner offered highest bid and deposited 25 percent of the total auction amount.

The counsel of transport department submitted that the Sindh government wanted to establish bus terminal in Paposh Nagar and due to lack of space the electric buses were to park at roads. He submitted that land in question will be used for parking of Orange Line, electric buses. The court inquired the counsel how land could be given to the petitioner only on payment of 25 percent of amount within 10 years and dismissed the review petition.

In another matter, the court directed director general Karachi Development Authority to submit detailed report in land allotment case.

The court earlier took exception over conduct of defunct city district government Karachi’s counsel for not proceedings the case and called the Karachi mayor and secretary local government.

The CJP observed that CDGK filed case in 2010 and was still reluctant to proceed the case. Karachi Mayor Murtaza Wahab told the court that case was filed by the defunct CDGK and now the matter is related with KDA and it has nothing to do with KMC. The court directed DG KDA to file the report by April 26.

The court also directed private builder to submit details of challans which he deposited for commercialisation of multistory building at Chaudhry Khaliquz Zaman road in Clifton area on plea challenging commercialisation in the area.

Justice Isa observed that the court knows what is illegally happening in Karachi and issued notices to Master Plan Department, KMC and Clifton Cantonment Board.

He inquired from the builder’s counsel as to whom the commercialisation fee of the plot had been paid. The counsel submitted that commercialisation fee had been given to the Master Plan Department and sought time to file the documents with regard to payment of commercialisation fee.

In another matter, the chief justice also questioned 60 days time limit for filing petition in leave to appeal against a judgement, decree or final order against right to appeal which is 30 days and sought opinion of the senior counsel as whether same was justified whereas 30 days time was granted for filing appeal in the court.

Former federal law minister Farogh Naseem, former attorney general Khalid Javed Khan, senior counsel Faisal Siddiqui said that matter could be taken up both on administrative or judicial side to examine such aspect and it should be settled.