MUHAMMAD IRFAN Versus TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION TAXILA
ORDER
ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.--- Through this constitutional petition, petitioner seeks declaration that the impugned order dated 17.07.2014 passed by the learned Accountability Court No.1 Rawalpindi sealing the office of the petitioner is illegal, unlawful, void ab initio and is based on mala fide.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are that petitioner is engaged in business of development and construction of different projects under the name of Bolan Property Developers situated at Bolan City, First Floor, Jadoon Plaza near Sharif Hospital G.T. Road Wah Cantt Tehsil Taxila District Rawalpindi falling within the territorial limits of Cantonment Board, Wah. He was involved and arrested in reference No. 03 of 2014 titled The State v. Muhammad Irfan etc., pending in Accountability Court No.1, Rawalpindi. The respondent No.1 sealed the above said office along with the relevant record under the directions of DCO Rawalpindi and by the Investigating Officer of NAB as reflected from letter dated 18.07.2014. However, learned Accountability Court on the application of the petitioner recorded the statement of prosecutor of NAB to the extent that no proceedings of the sealing of the office have been carried out by the NAB authorities whereafter the order dated 17.07.2014 was passed wherein it was observed that since no proceedings for sealing of the office were conducted by the orders of NAB, therefore, application was incompetent and was dismissed. The petitioner time and again requested respondent No.1 to de-seal the premises but in vain, hence this petition..
3. Learned ADPG for NAB while filing the comments, submits that the premises was sealed on 05.06.2014 whereafter on 19.06.2014 the order was passed to TMO for its implementation and on 18.07.2014 inquiry was initiated, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly, learned Accountability Court No.1, Rawalpindi had dismissed the application on the ground that NAB authorities have not accepted the responsibility of sealing of property of the petitioner. If there was order dated 05.06.2014 in existence on the basis of which the property could have been sealed, the same was to be placed before the learned Accountability Court or at least the order dated 17.07.2014 was to be challenged by the NAB authorities. Additionally, under section 12 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 freezing of property is permitted for fifteen days and thereafter extension in time has to be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. Section 12 is re-produced as under: -
12. Power to freeze property.
(C) If the property ordered to be frozen is immovable, the freezing shall, in the case of land paying revenue, be made through the Collector of the district in which the land is situated, and in all other cases:--
(1) by taking possession; or
(2) by appointment of receiver; or
(3) by prohibiting the payment of rent or delivery of property to the accused or to any other person on his behalf; or
(4) by all or any such methods as the Chairman NAB or the Court may deem fit:
Provided that any order of seizure, freezing, attachment or any prohibitory order mentioned above by the Chairman NAB, shall remain in force for a period not exceeding [fifteen] days unless confirmed by the Court, where the reference under this Order shall be sent by Chairman NAB.
6. A perusal of above said section reveals that required procedure was not adopted by the NAB authorities even after passing of order dated 05.06.2014 (if any). We, therefore, declare that in presence of order dated 17.07.2014 passed by the learned Accountability Court No.1 Rawalpindi, the respondent NAB have got no lawful authority to seal the premises of the petitioner which shall be de-sealed forthwith. This petition is allowed in the above terms.
HBT/M-30/L Petition allowed.