The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought para-wise comments and relevant record from concerned authorities on transactions relating to the grant of 450 illegal CNG station licences in collusion with Tauqir Sadiq, reportedly brother-in-law of PPP leader Jahangir Badar.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and comprising Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed resumed the hearing of a suo motu case relating to approval of mega projects during the tenure of two former premiers - Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and Raja Pervez Ashraf.
A suo motu notice was taken subsequent to a note filed by the apex court's Registrar with attached press clipping of an Urdy daily dated 31, March, 2013. It alleged that records of mega projects approved during the tenure of two former Prime Ministers were being tampered with due to an apprehension that it may be summoned by the Supreme Court.
The note further maintained that for this reason efforts were under way by the bureaucracy to conceal the related summaries; and in spite of a ban, Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani granted 450 illegal CNG station licences in collusion with Tauqir Sadiq. As per another news item, a scandal likely to surface is related to Raja Pervez Ashraf's approval, as prime minister, of 200 illegal CNG station licences despite a ban on the issuance of new licences. However, Oil and Gas Regulations Authority (Ogra) has not issued the licences yet and constituted a Technical Committee to scrutinize this proposal and sought clarification from the Ministry of Petroleum.
Ogra is being pressurised to issue at least 69 licences out of the 200 approved licences, which reportedly belong to relatives/favourites of ex-parliamentarians. Former Minister and a senior official colluded to get a one-time ECC approval of a summary that declared the import of 59 containers of CNG cylinders. Eight groups are reportedly involved in the import of 42000 CNG cylinders.
The note of the Registrar concluded by stating that allegations, if proved, would constitute a blatant violation of government policy, PPRA rules and breach of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 9, 18, 24 and 24 of the Constitution. The hearing of case was adjourned till April 10.
Comments
Comments are closed.