One Constitution Avenue case: IHC conditionally allows FIA to conduct probe

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court on Wednesday conditionally allowed the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to probe alleged corruption in the land lease in the One Constitution Avenue (OCA) case.

A division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb allowed the FIA to resume its investigations.

However, the investigation agency was barred from arresting any of the petitioners in the case till an intra-court appeal (ICA) filed by the BNP group is concluded.

Hearing the case on Wednesday, the bench modified its previous order – issued in response to a petition filed by the BNP group on February 23, 2016, seeking a stay on investigations – which restrained the investigation agency from proceeding against those responsible for allegedly giving undue relaxation to the lessee.

During the hearing, Deputy Attorney General Raja Khalid Mehmood said that the court had stopped an inquiry into the case and requested the court to vacate the stay order.

The bench, however, modified its previous order allowing FIA to continue its inquiry against CDA, BNP group and others without arresting the petitioners.

The parties were directed to present final arguments on May 23.

On July 29, 2016, the CDA cancelled the 99-year lease for the 13.45-acre plot, located adjacent to the Convention Centre, which was handed over to BNP group through an auction on March 9, 2005.

A single-member bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah had dismissed BNP’s appeal against the lease termination on March 3, 2017. Following the decision, Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan had directed FIA and office of Advocate General to take up the case with IHC for vacating the stay order in respect of FIA’s inquiry.

The BNP group, though, had filed an ICA against a single bench’s decision of cancelling the land lease of the OCA’s under-construction building – meant for the Grand Hyatt Hotel.

ICA hearing

During the hearing of ICA, the BNP group’s counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan said that CDA had raised eight objections against the petitioners. However, he contended that the in actuality there were three objections– why did the company change its name, why was it given relaxations and facilities; and why has it not built a tower for a hotel.

The counsel argued that under Section 40 (registration of change of name and effect thereof) of the Companies Ordinance 1984, a company is allowed to change its name.

Moreover, he added that under section 144 (penalties for non-publication of the name) of the Ordinance, changing name was a non-cognisable offence and that the concerned authorities could only impose a fine of Rs200 per day for violations in this regard.

He added that BNP had applied to change its name on March 18, 2005, and was granted permission to do so on May 2, 2005.

While arguing over the meeting of the CDA board which terminated lease contract, he summed it up in these words: “Gods of CDA decided ‘we like you no more and you are dismissed’”.

Discussing Justice Minallah’s verdict, Khan said that the single bench did not discuss the CDA’s eight objections or whether the BNP group gave possession to buyers in violation of CDA by-laws.

In his arguments, the lawyer said that initially CDA was informed about utilising new name and later a detailed, Joint-Venture Agreement (JVA), was submitted to the civic body on June 26, 2005.

Khan claimed that the lease had been executed with the civic body after the JVA was shared with it, adding that the CDA accepted BNP’s name and no objection had been raised while signing a host of different documents, including the lease deed and rescheduling of payments. Referring to the objection over the lack of a hotel tower, Khan told the bench that plans for the hotel tower were pending.

He contended that the single bench did not note in its judgment that the builder was committed to building the hotel tower and was ready to provide a guarantee in this regard for a sum of up to Rs1 billion.

During the arguments, the bench noted that the case was not of a public interest litigation and that the matter at hand was about a contract between two parties.

The BNP counsel would further argue on April 25.

Source: The Express Tribune