LHC seeks Govt reply over Shehbaz Sharif’s contempt petition

15


The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Wednesday summoned reply from the federal government on May 26 over a petition of Shehbaz Sharif seeking compliance of the court orders, reported.

Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz president Shehbaz Sharif on Monday filed a contempt of court plea in the LHC for not allowing him to travel abroad.
The bench while issuing notice to the federal government ordered the Deputy Attorney General to appear before the court after getting instructions from the government.
Earlier, the government lawyer opposed the plea of Shehbaz Sharif. “If the petitioner’s name has been in the exit control list (ECL),” the bench questioned. “The court’s decision has been implemented,” government lawyer said.
The court asked the counsel of Shehbaz Sharif to challenge the ECL law in the court. The lawyer replied, The issue is compliance of the court order”. The learned court demand reply over the matter to clear the situation”.
The Lahore High Court had granted one-time permission to the opposition leader to travel abroad for medical treatment, but he was offloaded by the FIA immigration authorities.
The opposition leader made the federal government and Director General Federal Investigation Agency (DG-FIA) Wajid Zia the respondent in his plea.
The plea filed through Amjad Pervez and Azam Nazir Tarar advocates in the LHC stated that Shehbaz Sharif was allowed by the high court to travel abroad for treatment, but he was stopped at the airport by the FIA immigration counter.
The LHC has been asked to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the officials for not complying with the court orders.
The Lahore High Court in its conditional permission allowed Shahbaz Sharif to go abroad from May 08 to July 05. The court in its six-page written order said that Shehbaz could not be barred from travelling abroad even if his name is on the blacklist. His name is currently not on the ECL, the court had said in its order while adjourning the hearing of the case for July 05.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here