The bench headed by Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, however, observed the bench will consider the plea at the time of final decision on the writ petition. The bench further observed that since the counsel for the respondents has left the court in an angry mood, therefore, a fresh notice is issued to the Attorney General for Pakistan to make arrangements for his representation before the court on behalf of the federal government on July 07, otherwise the matter would be decided on its own merits. Before proceedings were started the counsel for respondent, federation, Talib H Rizvi requested that the applications filed by him is heard before the opening arguments by the counsel for the writ petitioner.
The bench told Rizvi, that since the arguments in the main writ petition were about to be concluded by the petitioner's counsel on Monday (today), therefore, he can make his submissions on the point of maintainability of the writ petition in order to save the time because it was not possible for this bench to hear the arguments of both sides on the maintainability of the writ petition first and then if this bench comes to the conclusion that the writ petition is maintainable then again hear all the counsel for the parties.
The bench also told Rizvi that his application will be considered and the point raised therein shall be taken note of by the court at the time of deciding the matter finally. This made Talib Rizvi annoyed. He stated that if his submissions are not heard first, then he has instructions from his client not to plead their case. He requested the bench to withdraw his power of attorney on behalf of respondents, the federation, and left the courtroom along with other counsel for the respondents.
The bench after examining the applications filed by the federation observed that it is not clear whether Rizvi is representing the Federation of Pakistan or Asif Ali Zardari.
The bench said a writ petition is admitted to regular hearing on the statement of the Attorney General of Pakistan. According to the court, the AGP has candidly stated that some questions of important nature are involved in this petition, therefore, he has no objection if this writ petition is admitted to regular hearing.
The bench observed that although the application could have summarily been dismissed on the ground that since the writ petition had been admitted to regular hearing and it was not the stage where the writ petition could have been dismissed being not maintainable, but in the interest of justice this court asked the counsel for the applicant that his application will be considered at the time of finally adjudicating upon the writ petition and his argument will definitely be taken into account at that time.
The bench further held that if Rizvi is counsel for the federation then it was not proper for him to attack upon the said order which is solely based on the statement of the Attorney General for Pakistan, the representative of the federation. Although, the federation took divergent stances on the writ petition, but in the interest of justice the court did not summarily dismiss the application of respondents and kept it pending till the conclusion of the arguments by the counsel for the writ petitioner.
The bench held that in such circumstances, the counsel for the federation has tried to twist the court proceedings. The bench further observed that the counsel for the federation has misinterpreted the last court orders in the terms alleged in his said application.