LG representatives case: LHC rejects petitions seeking inclusion of suspension period

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday rejected petitions seeking inclusion of suspension period of local bodies due to the enactment of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2019 in their tenure to complete a five-year term.

Read more: LHC seeks reply from Punjab LG secretary in LG representatives case

Justice Jawad Hassan delivered the judgment, which was reserved earlier today, on the petitions filed by Mayor Lahore Colonel (retd) Mubashir Javed and others.

Earlier today, Additional Advocate General (AAG) Javed Akhtar appeared on behalf of the provincial government and stated that the petition was not maintainable as it was not filed in the public interest but the personal interest of the petitioner.

AAG Akhtar pointed out that the Supreme Court (SC) Pakistan had ordered to restore the local bodies in Punjab, and the petitioner himself admitted before the apex court that the term of local bodies would expire in 2022.

The Punjab government’s counsel pointed out that the issue of extending the period of suspension was not raised in the petition filed in the SC and clarified that the top court had not given any order regarding the extension of the period of suspension. He also requested the court to reject the petitions.

The secretary of local government Punjab also submitted his reply in the LHC today.

Mayor Lahore Mubashar Javed had earlier filed a petition in the high court through his counsel and sought compensation for the tenure of elected representatives of local bodies in the province under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013.

The petitioner had claimed that he was elected as city mayor under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013, for a five-year term.

Read more: LHC directs SECP to determine legal status of cryptocurrency with stakeholders

He also argued that the local bodies in Punjab were illegally dissolved in 2019 without following due procedure, adding that he remained deprived of serving people for over 22 months.

The applicant maintained that barring him from service was not only against the doctrine of democracy, but also an infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 17 of the Constitution.