Islamabad-Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf yesterday moved an intra-court appeal (ICA) challenging the Islamabad High Court single bench’s verdict directing PTI to hold its protest at Democracy Park and Speech Corner.
A division bench of IHC comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb would Wednesday (today) conduct hearing of the ICA moved by PTI lawyer’s forum against IHC single bench’s decision dated October 31.
The ICA was filed by petitioners Muhammad Bilal and Nasir Azzem Khan through several lawyers. The petitioners nominated secretary ministry of interior, inspector general (IG) of Islamabad police, chief commissioner ICT and deputy commissioner/district magistrate as respondents in this matter.
The petitioners challenged the IHC order dated October 31, 2016 and adopted that the State Minister for Capital Administration and Development Division (CADD) Dr Tariq Fazal Chaudhry on October 30, 2016 addressed a public meeting in Shakrial, where section 144 was not imposed.
The IHC single in its verdict had noted, “If Imran Khan shows his willingness to protest or stage sit-in at designated place, federal government and district administration may allow such activity.”
The court judgement further added that in order to ensure protection of life, security, person, property and other fundamental rights of the citizens of Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT), the state is duty bound to protect these rights and take all remedial steps in accordance with law. And if any attempt is made to block or lock down the ICT or any effort is made to disrupt the normal life of the city, the administration has the authority to deal with the situation as per mandate of law.”
In their petitions, they contended that government has installed containers at various places in ICT as well as motorway, G.T road, especially on the boundary of KPK and Punjab. Doing so federal government has violated an earlier order of IHC dated October 27 where it was directed not to block the roads by placing containers on them.
The petitioner added that they have been highlighting corruption and corrupt practices of the sitting prime minister in Panama papers and in revenge sitting government is trying to involve appellants and Chairman PTI in criminal cases.
They argued that the single member IHC bench paid no heed to the petitioners case and passed the impugned order in hasty and cursory manner and they were condemned unheard.
They continued that the judgment is violative of fundamental rights and therefore, they prayed to the court to set aside the order.