PESHAWAR, June 25: The Peshawar High Court reserved on Wednesday its judgment on a petition seeking court’s verdict on a thorny issue of who is the chief executive of the province — the governor or the chief minister.

The court will announce its judgement on Thursday on the petition filed by Kohistan District Nazim.

A two-member bench of the high court, comprising Chief Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan and Justice Dost Mohammad, reserved its order after conclusion of arguments by petitioner’s counsel Yahya Afridi and NWFP Advocate-General Barrister Jehanzeb Raheem.

Mr Raheem contended that the chief minister was the chief executive of the province and not the governor, therefore, the resolution moved against the Nazim in the assembly by the chief minister was legal and in accordance with the NWFP Local Government Ordinance, 2001.

He added that under Article 69 read with article 127 of the Constitution the proceedings before parliament and the assembly could not be called in question before any court.

The petitioner challenged the proceedings against him by the government and the resolution moved against him in the NWFP Assembly for his removal and prayed to the court to declare the entire proceedings against him illegal and unconstitutional.

Mr Afridi advanced his arguments on three main points: the governor is the chief executive of the province; issue pending in the high court could not be taken up for proceedings in the assembly; and that nobody should be condemned unheard.

He argued that under Article 129 of the Constitution the executive authority of the province should vest in the governor and should be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him. “It is up to the governor to delegate his powers to any authority and in the case of local governments he has yet not delegated his powers to any person, including the chief minister,” he added.

He argued that under section 23 of the Local Government Ordinance the chief executive could move a motion for the removal of the Nazim. Moreover, he added that the Nazim had to be heard by the assembly, but in the instant case the assembly had constituted a special committee for hearing the Nazim.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that under the rules of the NWFP Assembly no matter pending in the court could be brought to the assembly. He added that although the high court had issued a stay order in favour of the petitioner, the provincial government brought the matter to the assembly which was violation of the law.

The advocate-general argued that the petition was premature and the cause of action for the Nazim had yet to arise as no adverse action had been taken against him by the assembly. He added that the petitioner should go to the assembly, appear before the committee and the committee might or might not decide the issue in his favour.

Mr Raheem argued that under the Article 105 of the Constitution the advice of the cabinet and chief minister was binding on the governor. He added that the chief minister was the chief executive of the province and he used his authority through the governor in different cases.

The bench inquired how he would interpret Article 129 of the Constitution which stated that the executive authority vested in the governor. Mr Raheem argued that Article 129 should be read with Article 105 under which the advice of the chief minister was binding on the governor.

The bench observed whether it would not have been appropriate for the government to move the motion in the assembly in the name of the governor.

The advocate-general referred to various judgments of the superior courts, including Mian Nawaz Sharif case of 1993, Zaffar Ali Shah case of 2000 and presidential reference to the Supreme Court of 1997, stating that it was a settled question that the prime minister was the chief executive of the country and the chief minister was the chief executive of the province.