CDA did not issue prior notice to PTI before sealing office: IHC.
It says order neither addressed nor copied to the petitioner.
PTI moved IHC against CDA’s sealing of its Central Secretariat.
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Tuesday ordered the Capital Development Authority (CDA) to de-seal the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) Central Secretariat, providing relief to the former ruling party.
“CDA may take action strictly in accordance with law in case of any non-conformity or violation of the applicable laws,” IHC’s Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz stated in a six-page written order.
This is the second major relief to the party as the IHC on Monday annulled jailed founder Imran Khan and party’s Vice-Chairman Shah Mahmood Qureshi’s conviction in the cipher case containing charges of misusing and misplacing the classified diplomatic document.
The order said that CDA had issued notice and show-cause notice to the previous owner in 2022 and 2023, however, it failed to provide an explanation for the sending the notices.
The court, in its order, also said that no receipt of such notice or show cause notice is on record. Moreover, the CDA did not issue a prior notice to the PTI before sealing its office.
The order also said that the sealing order was neither addressed nor copied to the petitioner let alone any evidence of service of the same.
The development comes after the Imran Khan-founded party on May 24 moved the IHC seeking its order to de-seal its central secretariat in the federal capital.
The CDA had demolished a portion of the PTI Central Secretariat over a “violation of building rules”, drawing strong condemnation from the former ruling party.
The CDA said that its anti-encroachment team launched an operation to eliminate illegal construction and encroachment.
In response, PTI secretary general, Omar Ayub Khan, filed the petition and made secretary of interior, chief commissioner, CDA chairman, and IG Islamabad parties in the case.
In his petition, the PTI leader said: “Neither any order nor any notice was ever served upon the petitioner, hence, the impugned act of the respondents is due to malafide intention, blackmailing, without due process of law and violation of principle of natural justice and also contrary to Article 4 and 10-A of the Constitution.”