The Supreme Court on Friday turned down Aitzaz Ahsan’s plea to be an attorney in a review petition of JJVL LPG quota case and sought report from the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) within a week.
Resuming the hearing of a review plea, a larger bench comprising of Justice Nasirul Mulk, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Musheer Alam and Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rehman disallowed Ahsan’s application.
Ahsan urged the bench to allow him to represent the JJVL in the review petition against a three-member bench’s verdict in the case. He argued that the current review petition was special in nature, saying that in Khawaja Asif’s petition he intentionally skipped to appear before the bench of former chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry.
Substantiating his argument for non-appearance before Chaudhry, he said that he did not appear before the bench because he had led the lawyers’ movement and also represented Chaudhry in the court against his removal.
He cited the NRO judgement, saying that Masood Chishti had filed a review petition wherein Kamal Azfar argued and then Babar Awan replaced him, adding that although the review was dismissed, the court allowed Awan to argue.
During the course of hearing, Tariq Rahim advanced his arguments and claimed that the SC judgement in the instant matter was based on misreading of facts.
He also claimed that it could be easily established with primary evidence that the court had illegally cancelled JJVL contract. Upon which, the bench directed him to file within a week a complete record of all applications filed in Khawaja Asif’s petition against cancellation of the contract.
FIA Director Legal Zaheer Ahmed apprised the court that he had filed a report regarding the issue of submission of bid bond, royalty payment and acquisition clause before the court. To a question that why the inquiry was not finalised in the matter so far, Ahmed said that an initial report had been filed whereas final report could be submitted shortly.
However, Ahsan raised objection, saying that the court had no jurisdiction to oversee the inquiry/investigation or to interfere in the jurisdiction of the FIA, adding that the probing officer should have completed the inquiry without fear and favour. Supporting the JJVL, he pleaded that JJVL had been co-operating with the Inquiry Committee, saying the FIA was dealing with the matter in a transparent manner. To which, Justice Khawaja said that the bench had nothing to do with the interference in the course of inquiry, it was only asking about the current status of the inquiry.
Khawaja Tariq Rahim and Azhar Siddique had filed two review petitions against the SC judgement. Siddique had contended in his petition that in contractual matters the court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter on original side. He alleged that the court did not consider the relevant material and documents available on record. He also said that a bid bond was submitted and the contract was awarded in transparent manner whereas acquisition clause was also a part of the implementation agreement. He submitted that no loss occurred to the national kitty in the matter, urging the court to hear the review petition as an appeal under Article 184(3). He also referred to the Article 10-A of the constitution, saying that the judgement had violated the concept of due process of law and a fair trial.
