SC stops NAB from probing Peshawar BRT project

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday set aside the order of Peshawar High Court (PHC) directing the National Accountability Bureau to probe different aspects of Peshawar Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) project. A three-member SC bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, allowed the appeal of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP) government and the Peshawar Development Authority (PDA), challenging the order, passed by the PHC on July 17, 2018, directing NAB and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to conduct an inquiry into different aspects of the project.

The court held that no reasons were given in the impugned judgment and, after disposal of earlier writ, it had become functus officio, having no jurisdiction to make any further orders in a decided matter.

The court, however, extended the restraining order of the FIA from investigating the case by one month and directed the PDA to submit a concise reply and adjourned the hearing for a month.

A PHC division bench, headed by Chief Justice Waqar Ahmed Seth (late), while hearing different petitions, had held vide its order July 17, 2018 that the “delay, the contract awarding process, feasibility and all the issues relating to BRT are all shady and shaky”, and directed NAB to conduct an inquiry/ investigation into the matter relating to enhancement in scope of work and date of completion of BRT project and also transparency of the project.

NAB was directed to submit its report to PHC on Sept 5, 2018. Further, Israrul Haq was relieved as the project director of the BRT “forthwith” with the direction that a new project director from the provincial cadre or Peshawar Development Authority, etc. be appointed.

Later on, the KP government and the PDA challenged the PHC order in the Supreme Court.

The apex court on Tuesday granted leave to the appeal of KP government after suspending the operation of the PHC order.

Senior Advocate Makhdoom Ali Khan appeared before the court, representing the Peshawar Development Authority (PDA), while Shumail Butt, Advocate General Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, also appeared before the court.

Makhdo9m Ali submitted that the decision of the PHC suffered from a series of legal defects. He submitted that earlier a PHC bench, headed by Justice Yahya Afridi, had dismissed a petition challenging the project.

No appeal was filed by anyone against that judgment, which became final, Makhdoom said adding that later another division bench reopened the same case without anyone having filed a review petition against it or having called it in question under any legal provision.

This was done on a report, submitted by the Traffic Police on the rerouting of traffic in Peshawar due to BRT, the counsel said adding that the PHC, on this report ordered NAB to investigate the project.

Makhdoom Ali Khan submitted that there was no evidence or other legal basis for the direction of PHC. In any event, such a direction could not have been given in a petition which had already been decided in favour of the KP government by the PHC and the decision had remained unchallenged.

Two petitioners, including Fazal Karim Afridi and Adnan Afridi, had challenged before the Peshawar High Court, raising of different structures of the project adjacent to their houses in Hayatabad Township.

Another petitioner, advocate Isa Khan, had requested the PHC to order construction of overhead bridges or under-passes for pedestrians at a distance of not more than 100 meters.

The bench had formulated 35 points asking the FIA to probe it and act against the delinquents if found in the inquiry report.

The bench had directed the FIA authorities to take action against the delinquents if found guilty in the inquiry. The petitioners had submitted before the court that the project was initiated without any vision and plan.

The PHC had observed that such a huge amount spent on the BRT could have been used to complete projects in a number of sectors that would have changed the economic landscape of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa.

During the course of hearing, one of the petitioners Adnan Afridi told the court that their concerns about the project were well founded.

Similarly, an interesting dialogue took place between the petitioner from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Justice Umar Ata Bandial.

Justice Bandial asked the petitioner in Pashtu to be patient. At this, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, another member of the bench, said in a lighter vein that he did not know what his brother judge said.

“But I agree with what the Judge said,” Justice Muneeb remarked.

Meanwhile, the court directed the PDA to file a concise reply comprising additional documents pertaining to the project. Later, the court adjourned the hearing for a month.