LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Friday issued the detailed judgment on the bail petitions of NA Opposition Leader Shahbaz Sharif in Ashiana Housing Scheme and Ramzan Sugar Mills cases, ruling that Shahbaz neither misused his authority nor misappropriated funds allocated for the project or received illegal gratification, commission or kickbacks.
In its 20-page judgment, a two-judge bench comprising Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf ruled that the allegations of misuse of authority and canceling the first contract of the scheme against Shahbaz have not been supported by any documentary evidence produced by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
The bench observed that mere allegation of misuse of authority is no ground to decline the bail. If for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that there was any misuse of authority, even then the same may not amount to misuse of authority to constitute an offence under Section 9 (a) (vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. Shahbaz being the chief executive himself passed no order to cancel the contract awarded to M/s Ch Abdul Latif & Sons as the matter was left to the Punjab Land Development Company (PLDC). Furthermore, the allegation was not supported by any documentary evidence. In fact the contract was never cancelled and the matter was settled through written agreement on November 9, 2013 with the mutual consent of the parties and signed by chief executives of PLDC and M/s Ch Abdul Latif & Sons. It was further alleged by the NAB that then CEO PLDC Tahir Khursheed was forced by Shahbaz Sharif to cancel the contract but Khursheed did not utter a single word against Sharif while recording his statement before NAB u/s 161 CrPC.
The bench observed that the documents showed that the project was transferred to the LDA after an approval by the board of directors of the PLDC in its meeting held on November 23, 2014. “The PLDC initiated the project of the Ashiana Housing Scheme in 2011-12 and after the BoD approval, the contact was awarded to M/s Ch Abdul Latif & Sons. However, serious complaints were received by Shahbaz Sharif regarding the transparency of tendering/bidding process and he constituted an inquiry committee. The committee headed by then finance secretary Tariq Bajwa found certain irregularities in the bidding process. The PLDC CEO admitted that the project director was removed as he had not handed over the requited documents to the consultants on the bidding day. The consultant, Tahir Khursheed, met Chaudhry Latif & Sons a night before the bidding date which proves his bad intention. The court mentioned the bank guarantee issue of Chaudhry Latif & Sons.
The court also dismissed the allegation that Shahbaz Sharif illegally transferred the project of the Ashiana Housing Scheme from the PLDC to the LDA. The court ruled that the PLDC itself decided to transfer the project to the LDA after the approval of its BoD. The court clearly pointed out that Shahbaz Sharif had nothing to do with the Paragon Housing Society and was in no way connected to the property.
“The Learned special prosecutor for the NAB has frankly conceded that the owners of M/s Paragon City (pvt) Limited have no relationship with Shahbaz Sharif,” noted the bench, adding that even the subsequent contract awarded to M/s Casa Developers was cancelled about six months prior to receiving first complaint by the NAB.
Similarly there is no force in the NAB allegation that the chief minister, without securing approval from BoD, changed the mode of execution of the project from government to public private partnership because the latter mode is also lawful, as envisaged under the Public Private Partnership Act 2014.
“It is noteworthy that even the sitting government has launched a project for the construction of 5,000,000 houses in Pakistan under the same mode (public private partnership) and no objection has so far been raised in this respect by the NAB, the court observed.
The court ruled that under the Punjab government Rules of Business 2011, Chief Minister(Shahbaz Sharif) had the authority to transfer any subject or matter from one department to any other department. “Neither a single inch of state land has been transferred in the name of any persons or contractor nor a single affectee of the Ashiana Iqbal Scheme out of 6,100 affectees as claimed by the NAB made any statement against Shahbaz Sharif that he caused financial loss to them.
Prima facie, there is not a single affectee in this case because no amount for the allotment of any plot from any person has been received so far and only application forms along with nonrefundable fee of Rs 1,000 was received from an applicant and the same has been deposited in the national exchequer, the judgment explained.
“If Shahbaz Sharif had any intention to benefit any of his relatives or friends, he could have easily awarded the contract at the very first instance. There was no need for him to first award the contract to M/s Ch Abdul Latif & Sons and then get it cancelled and transferred to the LDA, the court concluded.
In Ramzan Sugar Mills case, the court observed that the NAB “pick and choose” policy seems to be mala fide. The NAB alleged that Shahbaz being chief minister of Punjab had issued a directive for the construction of a drain in district Chiniot primarily for the use of the Ramzan Sugar Mills owned by his sons. It said Rs 200 million was spent for this purpose from the public money.
The drain constructed near the mill not only benefited a large number of inhabitants of the area, the government godowns were also facilitated. The NAB has been failed to establish that the drain was constructed only to help the mill. The mill has been functioning for 24 years but no one had ever complained against it.
The court questioned how it could stop elected representatives from carrying out a development scheme and they are respected if they worked honestly and diligently. There were other drainage schemes in Jhang and Chiniot, why the NAB did not take action against them, the court said. If the drain was constructed in connivance with former MPA Molana Rehmatullah, why the NAB made him his star witness instead of nominating him as accused, the court said.
A large number of locals were benefitting from the open sewer while the government godowns too had benefitted from it, the court pointed out. The NAB could not establish that the channel was built only to benefit the sugar mill. If the mill operations had adversely affected the health of surrounding habitats, the NAB could have submitted a report of the Health Department as evidence but no such report was submitted, the court ruled.
The court pointed out that the prosecution witnesses themselves had conceded that the Ramzan Sugar mills had built special tanks for the disposal of waste materials. The local Patwari’s report and the decades-old accounts record of the mill too proved that the wastage disposal tanks existed long time ago. The court said how it can prevent any member of the parliament from implementing any development scheme. The court said honest, diligent and hardworking elected representatives are always respected.
The NAB could not also prove its objection regarding the diversion objection. The court pointed out that the entire project was approved by the cabinet as well as the parliament. Were these objections raised because the complainant’s own factory is in the same area and he stood to benefit from a decision against the Ramzan Sugar Mill, the court questioned. The court stated that the water channel was and is still the property of the government and the mill is paying for its usage.
