PHC seeks reply from minister, Pemra in contempt case

Restrains KP govt from sacking PPHI doctors

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Monday directed the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Minister for Revenue and Estate Ali Amin Gandapur and chairman of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) to submit reply to the contempt of court notice before June 3, the next hearing into the case.

A single bench of Chief Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel issued the notice to the provincial minister, Pemra chairman and an owner of a private news channel to submit reply in the contempt of court petition.

The PHC through registrar on April 25 issued contempt of court notice to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Minister for Revenue and Estate, Ali Amin Gandapur, in which it was stated that the minister held a press conference on April 23 at Dera Ismail Khan, in which he leveled serious allegations against the PHC chief justice regarding the alleged interference in the contracts and works of development projects of the district, which is very serious in nature and tantamount to scandalizing the superior judiciary, bringing it and its judges into hatred, ridicule and contempt.

The court had asked the minister to produce proof in support of his allegations before the court and failing which he would be proceeded against for contempt of court under Article 2014 of Constitution, Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 and other relevant laws.

During hearing, Abdul Lateef Afridi, counsel for the contemnor (Ali Amin Gandapur), submitted before the bench that his client wanted to tender apology in the court with the claim that he never thought of speaking against the judiciary and level any allegation against the chief justice.

In his short reply, which the court said should to be submitted properly in the court, the minister stated that he had never leveled allegations against the chief justice as only mentioned one Shoaib Miankhel, a contractor of civil works, who is misusing the name of the chief justice for blackmailing the government officials.

“When Communication and Works Department officials asked the contractor to complete his works, he instead of completing his work threatened the officials with complaining to the chief justice,” he stated, adding that he just gave a warning to the contractor not to use the name of the chief justice.

“I have the greatest respect for the judiciary, especially superior judiciary and in particular the PHC chief justice who belonged to my native district Dera Ismail Khan. I cannot even think of scandalizing or bringing into hatred the worthy chief justice,” the minister stated.

He further stated that the local press had wrongly published certain news, which had created a wrong impression. “I would not hesitate to tender an unconditional apology to the honourable chief justice in the open court,” the minister stated in the reply.

Meanwhile, the PHC on Monday restrained the provincial government from sacking doctors, appointed under the People’s Primary Healthcare Initiative (PPHI), till next order of the court.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Irshad Qaiser and Justice Syed Afsar Shah stayed the removal of the doctors appointed for the Basic Health Units (BHUs) across the province and sought reply from the government.

Dr Raheel and others had filed a writ petition against the provincial government’s decision on removal of the doctors with other employees appointed under the PPHI, a government-funded project.

The petitioners’ lawyer Qazi Muhammad Anwar submitted that the previous government had appointed the petitioners for the BHUs in the province under the PPHI programme. He contended that the petitioners were senior doctors but the provincial government issued notice to them that they would be terminated from service from June 30 as the provincial government had decided to wind up the PPHI next month.

The lawyer stated that the provincial government had advertised 1,000 posts for the doctors for the BHUs. It was very astonishing that the provincial government was removing senior doctors and appointing juniors on their place, which is discrimination with the petitioners, he added.

He said it was also learnt that the provincial government wanted to appoint its own persons by removing the petitioners. He requested the court to declare the provincial government’s notification regarding removal of the doctors from service as void.