ISLAMABAD - Business tycoon Malik Riaz Hussain on Tuesday filed a review petition challenging the Supreme Court’s August 30 judgment and alleged that the impugned verdict amounts to give preferential treatment to Dr Arsalan Iftikhar, son Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.Syed Zahid Hussain Bokhari, on behalf of Malik Riaz, filed the review petition under Article 188 of the Constitution read with Order XXVI of Supreme Court Rules, saying the August 30 judgment had been passed without lawful authority and jurisdiction as the order did not depict under what law the one-man commission was constituted. Many saluting remarks by the two-member bench and the chief justice in favour of Dr Shoaib Suddle created serious apprehension and doubts about his independence, as he actively participated in the walima ceremony of Arsalan, while the chief justice and his family attended the marriage ceremony of Suddle’s son in December 2011, the counsel said. Bukhari said Suddle’s social relations with Arsalan and his family would be a hurdle in conducting a fair inquiry.He said the petitioners were never consulted before appointing the one-man commission. “The judicial powers for probe cannot be awarded to a member of executive, who is not a judicial officer,” adding that the court without annulling the order dated 14-06-2012 could not pass an order of entirely different nature.The decision amounted to give preferential treatment to a party and affected a fundamental right of the petitioner as guaranteed under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution, which provided that every citizen had the right to be treated strictly in accordance with law, without any discrimination, the review petition said. Bokhari stated that all the points agitated by the petitioner had not been answered by the court in the judgment. “In these circumstances, the court had omitted to take notice of points and objections raised by petitioners before the bench qua maintainability of review petition and jurisdiction of this honourable court.”He said no answer to the questions raised in the concise statement of the petitioner would amount to error on the face of the record, which resulted in causing miscarriage of justice, would nullify judgment as a whole. “The court has also not answered the question of maintainability of Dr Arsalan Iftikhar review and the objection raised by the NAB while pronouncing the impugned judgment.”He prayed that the concise statement filed by the NAB and the petitioners may kindly be treated as integral part of the petition. The petitioner said the court could not entrust investigation to any other agency or commission after its observation that “acts involve may fall under particular pieces of criminal legislation including Section 9 of NAO, which deals with acts of corruption.”In the cases involving the sons of ex-prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi it was alleged biased but the court did not interfere or appointed a new person to investigate the cases against them.“It is equally established law that a review petition is not like an appeal and in a review petition the court only examines whether there is an error apparent on the record, otherwise the review is dismissed. In this case the court did not find any illegality in its earlier order but decided to change the investigation and appointed an investigator in a review petition, which amounts to changing the law of review,” the petition added.