LHC issues contempt of court notices to three sugar mills

LAHORE: A division bench of the Lahore High Court issued on Wednesday notices of contempt of court to the chief executive officers of Ittefaq, Chaudhry and Haseeb Waqas sugar mills — believed to be owned by members of the prime minister’s family — for crushing sugarcane at their mills in defiance of a stay order.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, was hearing intra-court appeals filed by the three mills against a verdict given by a single-judge bench that had declared as void their relocation to districts of south Punjab.

JDW Sugar Mills, owned by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf leader Jahangir Tareen, and others had raised the issue of relocation of the mills before a single-judge bench. However, a two-judge bench later suspended the decision after which the petitioners moved the Supreme Court against the order. The apex court then remanded the case back to the LHC, suspending crushing of cane at Chaudhry Sugar Mills (Rahim Yar Khan), Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills (Muzaffargarh) and Ittefaq Sugar Mills (Bahawalpur).

During Wednesday’s hearing, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, representing Mr Tareen, told the LHC chief justice that the sugar mills had blatantly violated the court’s order by continuing to crush cane.

He said the bench had in its last month’s order sealed the sugar mills and banned all activities there, but the mills ignored the order.

Mr Ahsan presented documentary evidence in support of his argument and said that it confirmed that the mills were buying sugarcane from the farmers and crushing it.

The bench expressed dismay and issued contempt of court notices to the CEOs of the three sugar mills, directing them to personally appear in court on May 8 to explain their positions. Barrister Ahsan would continue his arguments on Thursday (today).

While issuing the sealing order, Chief Justice Shah had observed that the mills owned by the family and relatives of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had not only brazenly flouted court orders but also disregarded the ban imposed by the government on establishing new sugar mills, and had not even bothered to seek permission for relocation under the ‘Relocation Policy’.

He further observed that the conduct of the appellant mills amounted to taking the law into their hands or being the law unto themselves. The CJ maintained that this could not be permitted in a democratic country governed by the Constitution.

In this case, the provincial government had told the bench that action had been initiated against the appellant mills under the relevant law.

Source: Dawn