ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), Thursday, suspended the city administration’s notification regarding a reduction of Roti price.
A single bench of Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri heard a petition filed against a reduction of Naan and Roti prices. The petition was moved by Sajjad Ali, president Naanbai Welfare Association through advocate Umer Ijaz Gilani.
The petitioner has challenged the April 15 notification, issued by the District Magistrate, Islamabad Capital Territory, whereby, the price of Roti (Tandoori 120 gram) has been fixed at the rate of Rs16 and the price of Naan (120 gram) at Rs20.
During the hearing, a representative of the district administration adopted the stance that district coordination officers (DCOs) had been given the authority to set the prices under an amendment to the relevant laws.
At this, Gilani contended that the federal price control fell under the prime minister’s monitoring. The representative then replied that the controller general of prices and supplies would be appointed by the federal government.
He said the assistant controller was to be appointed by the officer authorised to do so by the government, adding that the controller general was empowered to set the prices.
Gilani further contended that the notification had been issued under Section 3 of the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977, which did not give the controller general the power to set prices and was not referred to in the notification.
Justice Jahangiri asked whether a Roti weighing 120 grams was being sold at Rs25 in Punjab, to which, the Islamabad spokesperson replied that the said rate was from another province. Gilani said that flour is expensive here and rent is high in the federal capital.
The representative informed that the officer concerned was not present and requested the court to accept para-wise comments and adjourned the hearing.
The IHC bench asked him “if you asked the Tandoor owners how much was flour costing them or issued the order (notification) merely to appease the public.”
Later, the court suspended the notification seeking detailed responses from the respondents and deferred the hearing of the case till May 6.
In this matter, the counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned notification has been issued by the District Magistrate, ICT, Islamabad, by exercising the powers under Section 3 of the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977, whereas, Section 3 of the Act provides that only the federal government is empowered to issue such notification.
He contended that the impugned notification issued by incompetent authority is erroneous and is not tenable under the law; hence the same is liable to be set aside.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.