SHAHID RAO
ISLAMABAD - A division bench of Islamabad High Court (IHC) Monday issued an interim order and awarded status quo in the pending Intra-court Appeals (ICAs) about the affairs of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB). 

In the interim order, the division bench comprising Justice Riaz Ahmad Khan and Justice Noorul Haq N Qureshi has restored PCB chairman Najam Sethi and the interim management committee (IMC).
The order passed by the bench says: "Since this court had already passed the order of status quo, therefore, status quo shall remain in field as from the last date of hearing that is October 29, 2013. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that though order of status quo has been passed by this court, yet another order has been passed by the learned single judge, by virtue of which, the PCB has been directed to release an amount of Rs 2.5 million, so in this respect some order may be passed. The status quo order of this court shall include the question regarding release of money as well and for all purposes, the things would remain as they were on October 29, 2013.”
It is pertinent to mention here that prior to the hearing of the above said ICAs, Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui Monday accepted an application of PCB chief operating officer (COO) Subhan Ahmad who sought permission from the court to pay Rs 2.5 million to the court's appointed election commissioner Justice (R) Munir A Sheikh.
Earlier, Justice Shaukat of the IHC had restrained Sethi and the members of the IMC to perform any function of the affairs of the board on October 29.
The same IHC bench had also appointed Justice (R) Munir A Sheikh of the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an election commissioner to hold the PCB elections by third week of November.
It remained a matter of great confusion Monday that whether or not Sethi and members of the IMC have been restored, as the division bench did not clarify the status quo.
The lawyers from opposing sides had been interpreting the judgment in their favour. Since the division bench has awarded a stay order regarding the payment to election commissioner Munir Sheikh, so it was perceived overall that the PCB election has been stayed and consequently, the October 29 order of the IHC single bench has been suspended. It is to mention here that no ICA till this time has been filed against the October 29 order.
The division bench of IHC Monday took up five intra-court appeals (ICAs) of the ministry of inter-provincial coordination (IPC), former chairman PCB Zaka Ashraf, PCB, Lahore Cricket Club and Major (R) Ahmad Nadeem Sadal issuing notices to the respondents for next date of hearing that is November 7. All the ICAs were filed either against or in lieu of the July 4 judgment of the IHC single bench.
Legal counsel for IPC Asma Jehangir advocate argued before the court that the main writ petition of Major (R) Ahmed Nadeem Saddal was decided on July 4 then how come the single judge heard a civil miscellaneous (CM) application in this matter. The court of single judge has allowed the PCB officials to pay Rs 2.5 million to the election commissioner those who don't have the signing authority, she said.
She further argued that on October 29, the division bench had awarded status quo in this matter but it was not in the written order. Due to the fact, the contract of 89 officials of the PCB could not be extended. Pakistan's tour to South Africa was cancelled as the selection committee was disbanded.
Advocate Asma prayed to the court to award status quo so that the PCB officials could come back to their positions. The court at that instance conceded that it has ordered for a status quo on October 29 but it could not have been in written due to typographical mistake.  Advocate Asma said that the July 4 judgment of the single IHC bench has been a reflection of sue motto whereas the apex Supreme Court has clearly defined the sue motto powers.
She said that patron-in-chief PCB, who is prime minister of Pakistan, has powers to formulate policies. The concept of democratic system revolves around the separation of powers. She said that the way government privatises different institutions, the PCB should be judicialised as the judiciary has been interfering into the powers of patron-in-chief.
Cricket is only sport in this country which not only earns its own money but in the last 10 years, the PCB has paid Rs 350 million on account of taxes.
Advocate Asma argued that the IPC has no objection over holding of elections but the way cricket functions here, cricketing clubs have vested interests and they are in litigations against each other. "For the time being, we put a lid over it and we would hold the elections in an appropriate time," she added.
Referring to the July 4 judgment, Asma said that it was a fallacy in the judgment that the PCB chairman should be someone who knew cricket. In Australia, there is a civil engineer heading the cricket board, in Bangladesh, New Zealand and India, there were either industrialists or traders heading the cricket affairs so it is not a requirement of the International Cricket Council (ICC) to appoint a chairman after elections.
She added the ICC, however, demanded transparency and the IPC was also trying to establish the same. If the government did not patronise cricket, there would be people who would occupy cricket stadiums. “The federal government is lawful appointing authority since 1953,” she said.
Legal counsel for ex-PCB chief Zaka Ashraf, Afnan Karim Kundi advocate argued before the court that the PCB could not file an ICA in this matter as it was not a party in the main judgment.
Legal counsel for PCB Tafazzal Rizvi advocate objected the proposition and said the PCB could file an ICA. He said the board had lost millions of rupees due to the court's judgment on account of sponsors and broadcasting rights.
Legal counsel for a respondent Ch M Anwar, Aftab Gul advocate argued before the court that the IPC and the PCB didn’t want to hold elections and they were making lame excuses. “The PCB constitution provides a mechanism under which elections for its chairman can be held,” he added.
Justice Riaz Ahmad Khan at that instance said that the cricket board and the IPC were not opposing the elections but they were saying that the court did not have powers to order for holding elections. Later, the court adjourned the hearing till November 7 for further proceedings.