Karachi: Petitioner, Pasban Democratic Party (PDP) Chairman Altaf Shakoor filed objections to statement/ comments filed on behalf of the Province of Sindh in constitutional petition N0 D-929/2020 challenging the Establishment of the Office of Ombudsman for the Province of Sindh (Amendment) Act 2020.
Advocate Irfan Aziz filed the objections on behalf of the petitioner. He submitted that the Respondents have not given any objections to Paras 1 to 10, which deem to be admitted.
The petitioner submitted that in reply to Para 11 of the Petition, it is submitted that the Governor has three sets of Power which he can exercise, (i) Constitutional Power, in which Governor is bound by the advice of the Chief Minister, (ii) Constitutional Discretionary powers, & (iii) Statutory Discretionary Powers. That the scheme of the Ombudsman Act, 1991, is totally destroyed by the impugned Amendment as who can advise the Chief Minister, which is against Articles 101 to 105 of the Constitution, the impugned amendment ultra vires the Constitution. The impugned Amendment overpowered the judiciary and influenced upon the judiciary by the Executive which is against the spirit of the Constitution. How could it be possible that the Government officers can check the mal-administration of the Government which is against the principle that nobody can be a judge in his own cause. That in Punjab and KPK still the Ombudsman Office is separately functioning without the influence of the Chief Minister.
He submitted that as Para 12 to 16 of the Petition are not denied, as such, said paras are deemed to be admitted. That the reply to Para 17 to 19 of the Petition, given by the Respondent No.1 is vehemently denied, as the impugned Amendment is against the Constitution and scheme of the law and against the will of the people, which cannot be sustained in any manner. The legislative work of the Parliament always for the welfare of the people and in a bonafide manner, not for the personal gain, advantage of the Chief Minister or the Government. It is admitted position that the Bill was passed without observing the codal formalities of the Sessions of the Provincial Assembly.
The petitioner submitted that Para 20 to 26 of the Petition are not denied, as such, said paras are deemed to be admitted. That in reply to Para 6 of the Statement/Comments, it is submitted that the Respondents have completely failed to justify their malafide impugned Amendments for the purpose of their own gain, not for the welfare of the people at large.
About grounds, the petitioner submitted that the Grounds mentioned in the Statement/Comments from Para 1 to 7 are vehemently denied, being repetition and without any substances. The Petition has been filed pro bono public which is maintainable in law. That the impugned amendment has fully demolished and destroyed the very essence and sprit of the legislature and law as in the, the Ombudsman was to act independently, separately from the legislature and Executive but the impugned amendment curtailed the independence of the judiciary, which is against the norms of the Constitution.
He further submitted that the impugned Amendment is against the spirit of Article 101 to 105 of the Constitution as the whole Constitutional functions of the Governor have been ceased which is ultra vires the Constitution. The statutory and constitutional office of the Governor should be erased from the Constitution for the survival of the impugned amendment. That the impugned amendment also gives rise to the conflict of interest and basic rationale of law and the independent act of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman Act becomes absurd due to the impugned Amendment. In 2013, in Civil Appeal No.359/2013, the Supreme Court declared the same amendment as bad law.
The petitioner submitted that in light of the above, the petition may be allowed by striking down the impugned Amendment made by the Chief Minister without observing the Assembly Sessions and Codal Formalities.