Banner Before Header

Sugar Inquiry case: Permission to take action against sugar mills

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has lifted the stay on the Sugar inquiry report and allowed the government to take action against the sugar mills.

0 9

According to reports, the Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court (IHC) rejected the petition of the sugar mill owners and also lifted the restraining order.

Chief Justice Islamabad High Court issued a 4-page judgment. A comprehensive judgment on the case will be issued later.

Related Posts
1 of 157

Earlier yesterday, during the hearing on the request of the mill owners in the Sugar Commission of Inquiry case, Javed Khan  Attorney General of Pakistan Khalid had referred to the Panama case and the fake account case during his arguments and said that the court had constituted JIT in the Panama case and fake bank accounts case was formed in which officers of several institutions were involved.

Read more: The owners challenged the Sugar inquiry report in court

He said that the reason why the government had included officers of many agencies in the Sugar Inquiry Commission was that it would be wrong to say that the Commission of Inquiry was set up to take revenge on political opponents.

Giving arguments, Khalid Javed Khan said that the inquiry is being held against the government’s own strong allies and friends, it takes great courage and determination to take action against its friends and allies, action against friends and allies is proof that it No biased action.

During the hearing in the court, he said that it was said that this report would be misused in the future. Investigations on any assumption of the future could not be stopped today. Without any argument, it was said that the inquiry commission was biased. Yes, no member of the Commission of Inquiry is charged with business interests or political affiliation.

Also read: Court says sell Sugar at Rs 70 per kg across the country

The Attorney General of Pakistan said that the members of the committee are competent officers and do not take pressure from any government. The task of the Commission of Inquiry was to give its recommendations after fact-finding. The Commission of Inquiry gave its two kinds of recommendations. In addition to the nature of the action, long-term measures were also recommended.

Giving arguments, he said that when the purpose of the inquiry is not to take personal advantage of any malice, then what is prejudice? Article 9 of the Constitution gives every citizen the basic right to life. Protecting the life of a citizen means meeting his food needs. Providing this right to life to citizens is not only the job of the provincial government but also of the federal government. Yes, the real motives and those responsible for the Sugar crisis are being determined in the same spirit.

Giving arguments, Khalid Javed Khan said that the government itself does not want to make any “pick and choose” on the sugar inquiry. That is why the government has referred the matter to the concerned agencies, NAB, FBR, SECP independently. We will look into this matter. The institutions will see, according to their law, what action is taken against whom.

The Sugar Mills Association’s lawyer argued that the government was calling the owners of the Sugar Mills a mafia and that those who had already expressed their views could not be allowed to continue. The people of the institutions have already written a report in the Commission of Inquiry, and they will now investigate. If there is a trial on this biased action, it will be unfair.

Chief Justice Atharmanullah said that the Sugar report also blamed the officials of the present government. The owners of the mills are the beneficiaries. The real problem should be with those holding public office.

The lawyer of the sugar mill owners argued that the cabinet had decided separately, and the special assistant had decided separately. Shehzad Akbar was given the responsibility to implement the recommendations of the commission.

The Chief Justice asked whether the cabinet could give its powers to someone else. The court ruled in the Competition Commission case that the cabinet could not give its authority to anyone. “I advise the government to reconsider,” the attorney general said.



Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More