PESHAWAR, Dec 31: The Peshawar High Court delivered various important judgments in 2006, some of which were related to human rights.

Like the Supreme Court, the high court also remained the focus of attention during the year because of some important political and human rights cases.

The most important case pertained to the restoration of the membership of six MPAs, two of them women, of the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal, whose seats had been declared vacant on the basis of their controversial resignations.

A high court bench comprising Justice Ijaz Afzal and Justice Mohammad Raza Khan on July 19 set aside the acceptance of the MPAs’ resignations by the NWFP Assembly speaker. The bench ruled that the resignations should be deemed to have been pending before the speaker, who should hold an inquiry regarding their authentication and then take a decision.

Four of the MPAs, Maulana Dildar Ahmad, Gorsaran Lal , Rukhsana Raz and Yasmeen Khalid, were expelled from the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (Fazl) on March 25 on charges of selling their votes during Senate election. Their resignations were sent to the speaker by the party the same day. MPAs, Raja Faisal Zaman and Malik Hayat Khan were expelled by the Jamaat-i-Islami on May 2 and their resignations were accepted by the speaker the same day. All the six petitioners had disputed the resignations.

In another case, the court held that transfers and postings of government officials of grade 17 and above were illegal if carried out without consulting the district nazims concerned.

A two-judge bench accepted on April 6 a writ petition filed by Mardan Nazim Himayatullah Mayar and set aside orders of the provincial government regarding transfer and posting of two women officials of the district education department.

The high court entertained various writ petitions related to the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, and interpreted its different sections which provided relief to petitioners.

In an important verdict, the court ruled that property of a private limited company could not be attached in a settled area under the collective responsibility clause of the FCR.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Tariq Pervez Khan and Justice Raza Khan on June 29 ruled that under Section 21 of the FCR there was no absolute or unconditional discretion of the authorities concerned to take action against a tribe or its members. The bench allowed two writ petitions filed by the Toyota Frontier and Imdad Khan, owner of Imdad Kambal House, both situated in Peshawar, and declared illegal and unconstitutional the attachment of the property by the local police on the directives of the political administration of Khyber Agency.

In another writ petition, the high court interpreted Section 40 of the FCR and ruled that the tribal administration had no powers under it to sentence a person.

A bench comprising the chief justice and Justice Jehanzeb Raheem on May 3 allowed a petition filed by a detainee, Hadi Khan, who had been arrested for a crime committed by his brother and sentenced to three-year imprisonment by the assistant political agent of Orakzai Agency.

The bench observed that the administration had been blindly invoking Section 40. The bench observed that the section was related to good conduct of a citizen and under it the administration could only seek surety bonds from a person guaranteeing that he would maintain good conduct.

The high court also decided various other human rights cases, some of which pertained to marriages of women against the wishes of their families.

A bench allowed a petition of a woman, Basreena of Karak district, and ordered quashing of an adultery case registered against her after she had married a man of her choice.

In another case, nikkah of a girl was solemnised in the high court on the order of the chief justice against the wishes of her parent.

A bench presided over by the chief justice ruled on April 27 that the girl, Shabnum, was adult and she had the legal right to marry a person of her choice. The girl told the bench that she wanted to marry one Rafiq who had rescued her from a brothel in Punjab, but her parents were against that match.

On one petition, the high court set aside a jirga order to hand over an 11-year-old girl to a rival family from Charsadda to settle a dispute under the custom of swara.

A bench on June 23 ruled that the custom as illegal and unconstitutional.

The court disposed of a petition filed by the girl, Sanad Bibi, after the SHO of the police station concerned gave an undertaking that the so-called jirga order would not be implemented.Throughout the year, the court continued to hear habeas corpus petitions pertaining to missing persons who had allegedly been picked up by intelligence agencies. In most of the cases the deputy attorney- general on behalf of the federal government denied the charge, stating that the agencies concerned had expressed ignorance about their detention.