SHC tells chief secy to confirm no adviser holding portfolio

The Sindh High Court directed the chief secretary on Friday to file a statement confirming that no adviser was exercising executive authority of the State, nor had been given any portfolio or perks and privileges of a minster.

The directives came on a petition filed by Abdul Sattar Niazi against provincial labour adviser Saeed Ghani holding the powers of the executive authority of the Sindh Employees Social Security Institution (SESSI).

He submitted that despite court orders against the use of portfolios by advisers, the ruling government party’s senator was still holding a meeting of the SESSI’s governing body.  

Additional advocate general Mustafa Mahesar said after the judgement, no adviser had been empowered with authority equal to that of a minister.

An SHC division bench headed by Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah asked the provincial law officer as to how could an adviser chair a SESSI meeting when only the provincial minister could do so. The court observed that the chief minster would be issued a contempt of court notice if its judgement was not complied with in letter and spirit.

The court directed the chief secretary to file a statement confirming that no adviser was exercising executive authority of the State or enjoying the perks and privileges of a minster. It later adjourned the hearing till December 16.

Chief secretary Rizwan Ahmed Memon had appeared before the court on the previous hearing and submitted that no adviser was exercising executive authority.

 

Plea against wine shops

The SHC directed the advocate general to file detailed comments on the non-Muslims’ liquor consumption requirement for their religious festivals.

The directives came on identical petitions against the issuance of wine shops licences to retailers in Muslim-populated areas of Karachi and Thatta.

Petitioners Irfan Ali Bikak, Bushra Ibrahim, Sharyar David and others had assailed the issuance of wine shops licences to retailers by the excise and taxation department and submitted that wine shops were being allowed to operate in Muslim-populated areas in violation of the law.

Representatives of the Hindu and Sikh communities too had filed applications seeking a ban on the sale and manufacturing of liquor.

The court also issued a notice to the excise and taxation department on the petitions of retailers against the closure of their shops.

The court on the previous hearing observed that there was no provision under Section 17 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 that created a legal possibility for granting general licences to liquor shops to operate throughout the year. The court observed that non-Muslims could only be provided liquor for consumption for their religious ceremonies for which they had to request in advance with supporting evidence from their religious bodies.