PESHAWAR, July 19: The Peshawar High Court has restored the membership of six MPAs of the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal by setting aside the acceptance of their controversial resignations by the NWFP Assembly speaker.

The court on Tuesday ordered that the impugned resignations should be deemed to have been pending before the speaker who should hold an inquiry regarding their authenticity and then take a decision.

A two-member bench, comprising Justice Ijaz Afzal Khan and Justice Mohammad Raza Khan, allowed six identical writ petitions filed by the MPAs challenging the acceptance of their controversial resignations by the speaker and issuance of subsequent notifications by the assembly secretary declaring their seats vacant.

“For reasons to be recorded later these petitions are allowed and all the orders passed are set aside and the matter shall be deemed to have been pending before the speaker who shall hold inquiry and shall decide the matter thereafter,” the bench pronounced a short order after arguments from both the sides.

Four of the petitioners, Maulana Dildar Ahmad, Gorsaran Lal (minority MPA), Rukhsana Raz and Yasmeen Khalid, were expelled from the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (F) on March 25 on charges of selling their votes during Senate polls. Their resignations were sent by the party the same day to the speaker, who accepted it.

The other two petitioners, Raja Faisal Zaman and Malik Hayat Khan, were expelled by the Jamaat-i-Islami on May 2 and the same day their resignations were accepted.

Seats of the two women petitioners were filled on March 30 when the chief election commissioner notified Fouzia Naz and Saira Bano as MPAs, whereas the high court had issued restraining orders against filling of the rest of the four seats. By allowing the writ petitions, the bench had also set aside the notification of the CEC regarding the filling of the two seats reserved for women.

Barrister Masood Kausar, Mian Muhibullah Kakkahel and Yahya Afridi appeared for the petitioners and contended that the petitioners had not been treated in accordance with the law and the acceptance of the impugned resignations were in violation of Article 4 and 17 of the constitution.

“The resignations accepted by the speaker were not submitted in terms of Article 64 of the constitution read with Rule 50 of the NWFP Assembly Procedure and Conduct of Business,” contended Barrister Kausar.

He contended that the speaker should have conducted an inquiry after receiving the alleged resignations regarding their genuineness before passing any order.

The petitioners argued that it was ‘illegality’ on part of the speaker, so it had to be declared unconstitutional and illegal and the MPAs be declared members of assembly.

The bench questioned whether anywhere in the constitution it was mentioned that the resignations should be submitted in person.

Mr Kakakhel cited a 1992 judgment of the PHC in cases of two MPAs, Munawar Khan and Rehmatullah Khan, who were expelled from the Awami National Party in 1991 and their resignations were accepted by the speaker. The high court had set aside the notifications of declaring their seats vacant in that case and observed that resignations should be submitted voluntarily.

He argued that the case of the present petitioners was identical to that case as the members had stated that they had never submitted resignations.

He further referred to a 1976 judgment of the Supreme Court contending that the apex court had clearly laid down a guideline for the speaker for conducting an inquiry if the resignation had not been submitted by the member in person.

The petitioners questioned whether the speaker had satisfied himself that the resignations received by him had been voluntarily submitted.

Advocate Imtiaz Ali appeared for the speaker and argued that there was no procedure for an inquiry under the constitution or rules of business of the province.

Mr Ali said that after Senate elections, the matter of ‘lost votes’ had been probed and those found guilty had been asked to resign, which had been done accordingly.

He argued that the constitution provided no other remedy to a party for taking action in such cases, therefore, this step was taken, which according to him was in accordance to law.

NWFP advocate-general Pir Liaquat stated that the main question before the court whether the speaker was required to hold an inquiry or not.

He argued that the constitution nowhere made it binding on the speaker to conduct an inquiry in such situation. He contended that in the Indian constitution, an amendment had been made which said “speaker shall hold inquiry” but the mode of inquiry had not been defined.