PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Wednesday allowed the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Governor Faisal Karim Kundi and his staff to use the Governor’s House in Nathia Gali free of charge for official purposes.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Ejaz Anwar and Justice Dr Khurshid Iqbal heard a petition filed against the provincial government’s alleged plan to use the Nathia Gali Governor’s House for commercial purposes.
The petition was filed on behalf of the governor.
The petitioner’s counsels informed the court that under Article 101 of the Constitution, the governor was appointed, and Clause 3 of the same article stated that the governor shall receive such salary and privileges as determined by the president through a presidential order.
They argued that since 1975, a presidential order had stipulated that the governor shall be entitled to use official residences listed in the schedule free of charge.
In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, there are two such residences: Governor’s House Peshawar and one in Nathia Gali.
The counsels said under the Constitution, the governor was entitled to use the Nathia Gali residence for official purposes.
However, in recent times, the provincial government began treating the Governor’s House as a rest house.
The Tourism Department was directed to take control of the property, after which it was opened to the public and operated like a commercial guest house.
The counsels told the court that the Tourism Department fixed the rent for one room in the Governor’s House at Rs 40,000 per night.
They emphasized that the building holds constitutional and historical significance.
Upon later realizing its importance, the Tourism Department submitted a summary to the chief minister, proposing that the estate be handed back to the Administration Department.
Following the commercial use of the premises, the governor approached the court.
The counsels informed the bench that no governor had ever given permission for the property to be taken over or repurposed.
They argued that only a presidential order could change the status of the Governor ‘s House.
The counsels asserted that the provincial government did not have the authority to issue an order on its own to change the status of the property or deprive the governor of its use.