Contempt case against LHCBA Multan chief adjourned

LAHORE The full bench of the Lahore High Court Friday adjourned for second week of January, 2018, the contempt of court proceedings against High Court Bar Association, Multan president Sher Zaman Qureshi for interference and obstruction of dispensation of justice in Multan Bench for vandalising the court and bringing it into hatred and ridicule.

On Friday, the proceedings started under tight security. Qureshi did not appear before the bench. Lahore High Court Bar Association Secretary Aamir Saeed Rawn and additional advocate general, Punjab Shan Gul appeared.

They informed that Sher Zaman Qureshi had challenged the order of his arrest warrants before the Supreme Court. They requested to adjourn the hearing until the apex court order. Bench on their statement postponed the hearing.

The LHC bench had taken notice of an untoward incident which took place on 24th of July when the two lawyers along with others initially misbehaved and thereby obstructed the judicial proceedings being conducted by LHC judge of Multan Bench.

These advocates ransacked the court premises and ripped off the name plate of the judge. The bench after this tragic incident had issued notices to Qureshi and his colleague Syed Qaiser Abbas Kazmi. The lawyers had also started protest campaign against the bench.

UAF case: The Lahore High Court on Friday sought a reply from the Punjab government on a petition challenging acting charge of vice-chancellor at University of Agriculture Faisalabad given to Pro-Vice-Chancellor Prof Dr Zafar Iqbal.

The pro-VC had been holding the office of the VC illegally and in violation of due process of the law, former vice-chancellor Prof Dr Iqrar Ahmad Khan pleaded in his petition heard by Chief Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.

Petitioner’s counsel Saad Rasool argued that his client was appointed as vice-chancellor at the university after lawful process in 2013 till his four-year term expired on January 23, 2017. However, he said, the chancellor/governor assigned the petitioner duties of vice-chancellor until appointment of a regular incumbent at the university.

The lawyer said the post of the pro-VC was also lying vacant when the petitioner was given acting charge of the VC. However, he said pro-VC Iqbal approached the high court against the petitioner and the court restrained the petitioner from working as acting VC. Later, he said the court recalled its verbal order and allowed the acting vice-chancellor (petitioner) concerned to continue with the post. Advocate Saad Rasool argued that the respondent pro-VC had been holding the office of the VC in violation of the law and order of the high court as well.