IHC reins in provinces from taking over PTDC

1
125
  • PTDC’s counsel says provincial govts misinterpreted Constitution’s 18th Amendment, resorted to ‘harassment’ to take over PTDC’s control under IGP’s supervision without taking Centre into confidence
  •  

 

Islamabad High Court (IHC) has stopped all the provinces from occupying the property of Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation (PTDC) and assuming its control.

During the hearing, PTDC’s corporate counsel Raja Saimul Haq Satti took the plea that provincial governments issued a constitutional notification on April, 4, 2011 wherein it was recommended to hand over some departments of Ministry of Tourism to provinces.

Under this notification, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) secretary issued notification on September 1, 2014 for taking into possession assets of the company.

Satti told the court that the ownership and assets of PTDC which had come into being on March 15, 1970 are held by federal government. As many as 88 percent shares of this corporation are also held by federal government while 12 percent shares are held by employees of the corporation.

The provincial governments, instead of pursuing legal or constitutional course, misinterpreted 18th Amendment of the Constitution and started “harassing and interfering” in the matter to occupy the property and take over control of the corporation under the supervision of inspector general of police without taking into confidence the federal government, the counsel argued.

“This interference caused unrest and uncertain situation in the country. These moves have not only caused damage to tourism business in the country but also constitute flagrant violation of the Constitution,” he argued.

The petitioner has made federation of Pakistan respondent through Cabinet Division secretary and provinces of Punjab, Sindh, KP, Balochistan, AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan through chief secretaries.

The court while staying initiation of such steps by government and other respondents has directed them to appear before it with detailed replies. The hearing of the case was adjourned.

 

 

Comments are closed.