Former PTV MD files appeal against IHC’s decision

Former Pakistan Television managing director Yousaf Beg Mirza on Wednesday filed an intra-court appeal against a decision of the Islamabad High Court in which it had declared Mirza’s appointment illegal.

The application moved under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, the former PTV boss, raised a number of questions before the court. He contended that the impugned judgement was in violation of articles 4, 9, 10A and principles of natural justice.

He said he was neither allowed a fair trial nor due process was adopted, adding that the appellant was never put on notice qua his appointment in 2006, which ended on June 21, 2008 nor the appointment in 2010, which was to end in October 2013.

Raising another objection, Mirza said the petitioner could not have challenged the appellant’s appointment to 2010 in a petition filed in 2008.

“The impugned judgement over-reaches the pleading and prayers,” he added.

He said the learned single judge in chambers had no jurisdiction to issue directions, suo motu in nature of quo warranto without a formal petition before him.

Mirza argued that the impugned judgement was also contradictory as it assumed that the post of PTI MD was a promotion post, which was incorrect, adding that open competition had not been made a requirement, if appointment was to be made in-house.

“The learned judge could certainly have laid down a criterion to be followed in future but could not strike down a contract entered into, which such a directive or criterion, was not in the field,” he added.

He said the decisions relied upon by the learned Judge were not applicable in the case of PTV. “No qualifications were prescribed by any statue or rule for appointment of PTV MD,” he said.

He said the learned judge had also not noted that the total emoluments received from PTV by the appellant were only Rs 150,000 more per month than being paid to him by Dunya TV and that too because the appellant was able to increase advertisement revenue by his efforts.

The direction to recover amounts from the Appellant on the basis of a negotiated contract was unfair, unjust and oppressive.