IN THE HONORABLE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

ICA No. ______________/2023

In

W.P. No. 45360/2023

National Accountability Bureau, through Deputy Prosecutor General, National

Accountability Bureau, NAB Headquarters, Thokar Niaz Beg, Lahore.

Appellant

Versus

1. Parvez Elahi son Chaudhary Manzoor Elahi Resident of Mohallah Kunjah

House Kunjhari Sargodha Road, Gujrat (CNIC No. 35202-6099556-1)

RESPONDENT

2. Province of Punjab through is Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lower Mall,

Lahore
3. Anti-Corruption Establishment Punjab, through his DG Lahore
4. Federal Investigation Agency Through its Chairman, Islamabad
5. Inspector General of Punjab Police, Lahore
6. CCPO, Lahore
7. DIG (Operation), Lahore
8. Superintendent of Prison, Camp Jail, Lahore

PROFORMA RESPONDENTS

Intra Court Appeal:- Under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972
against the Order dated 13.07.2023, passed by
Honorable Single Judge in Chambers, thereby accepted
the Writ Petition No. 45360/2023

Respectfully Sheweth:

1. That this Intra Court Appeal is being filed against the Order
dated 13.07.2023 passed by Honorable Single Judge in Chambers
of this Honorable Court, whereby the petition filed by the
Respondent No. 1 (WP No. 45360/2023) was allowed.

1
2. That the addresses of the parties have been correctly supplied in
the heading of the captioned Appeal, which are sufficient for the
purposes of service of Notices, Summonses and other allied
processes that may be issued by this Hon’ble Court from time to
time.

3. That the present Intra Court Appeal before this Hon’ble Court is
competent and is being filed within the prescribed period of
limitation, after the summer vacations.

4. That the concise facts culminating in filing of instant Appeal are

as follows:

a) A complaint vide Diary No. 625/2023 was received in

NAB Lahore on 30.1.2023, which was lodged by Mian
Shahid Hussain Virk, Resident of Virk House, Manget
Road, Hafizabad alleging therein that accused persons
including the Respondent No.1 have received bribe /
kickbacks in award of contracts of different development
works of Punjab Highways department pertaining to
District Gujrat.

b) After the internal complaint verification processes and

based on preliminary facts and record collected, an
inquiry was authorized by the Competent Authority
against the accused persons including Respondent No. 1
vide authorization letter No. 1(9)HQ/2285/NAB-L dated
09.06.2023, which was subsequently upgraded into
investigation on 18.07.2023. Copies of Inquiry
Authorization & Investigation Authorization letters are
attached as Annexure ‘A’ & ‘B’, respectively.

c) That inquiry/investigation undertaken so far reveals that

a total of no less than 50 new schemes (23 ADP ongoing,
1x PSDP ongoing, 10x AD) and no less than 116
Supplementary Grants for road development works were
in progress at Gujrat Highways circle during financial
year 2022/2023. Estimated cost, amount allocated,
amount released & amount disbursed to contractors
against these schemes is substantial (for instance, during
FY 2022/2023, it was Rs. 62,864,529, Rs. 23,924,355/-, Rs.
23,424,366/-, and Rs. 17,237,304 respectively).

d) It is prima facie established that accused persons

including Respondent No. 1 (the then Chief Minister), his
2
 real son (Monis Elahi), Mehr Azmat (SE) along with other
co-accused persons, malafidely approved schemes under
supplementary grants and awarded contracts to their
favorite contractors against bribe/kickbacks in sheer
violation of rules. Accused persons in connivance with
each other made fraudulent advance payments to
contractors without any work being done at site. Thus the
accused persons including Respondent No. 1 misused
their authority to get illegal gains and caused huge loss to
Government Exchequer, and committed the offences of
corruption & corrupt practices as defined under section 9
(a), which is punishable under section 10 of NAO, 1999.

e) On 4.7.2023, a letter was issued to Respondent No. 1 for

reply of allegations against him. However, Respondent
No. 1 submitted an evasive reply, without reliance on any
supporting documents, and while concealing material
information.

f) Pursuant to Section 18(c) of NAO, 1999, inquiry report

was provided to the Respondent No. 1, which was
received by him on 17.7.2023.

g) Notwithstanding, the accused including Respondent No.

1 remained non compliant and noncooperative, hence
warrants of arrest of Respondent No. 1 (& 10 others) were
issued by the Competent Authority on 11.08.2023.
Accused Ashfaq Ahmed and Naeem Iqbal were arrested
on 23.07.2023, while accused Khalid Mehmood Chatha
was arrested on 14.08.2023, and accused Muhammad
Riaz was arrested on 29.8.2023. Copy of warrants of arrest
issued by NAB is attached as Annexure ‘C’.

h) Accused Azmat Hayat and accused Sohail Asghar Awan

filed applications u/s 26 of NAO, 1999 for grant of pardon
and becoming approver(s) in the subject investigation.
They have shown willingness to disclose true modus
operandi of crime. The Competent Authority has
tendered pardon and the accused persons got recorded
their statement as required under section 26 of NAO,
1999, and now their status has been changed from the
accused to that of the witnesses.

i) That Respondent No. 1 was belatedly arrested on

14.08.2023, and was produced before the learned Admn
Judge, Accountability Court, Lahore for his physical
3
 remand, which was allowed by the learned Judge till
21.08.2023. Respondent No.1 was again produced before
the learned Admn Judge, Accountability Courts, Lahore
and physical remand was extended till 29.8.2023, and
then again, further extended till 2.9.2023. Copies of
Remand order dated 14.8.2023, 21.8.2023, & 29.8.2023 are
attached as Annexure ‘D’.

5. That during the investigation of above said matter, Respondent No.1 filed a
writ petition bearing No. 45360/2023, titled as “Pervaiz Elahi vs. Care Taker
Government of Punjab etc” wherein the Appellant was arrayed as a
respondent (No. 4). Copy of writ petition No. 45460/2023 is attached as
Annexure ‘E’.

6. That writ petition came up for hearing before Hon’ble Judge in Chambers of
this Hon’ble Court on 13.07.2023, and the Hon’ble Court while allowing the
writ petition directed that “petitioner shall not be arrested in any blind or unknown
FIRs or in pending inquiries which shall be competed after providing statement of
allegation and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner under the Punjab Anti-
corruption Rules, 2014 or Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974”.

7. The Hon’ble Judge in Chambers has, in the absence of any evidence available
on the record and without calling for the material from the concerned
authorities regarding the inquiry against the Respondent No. 1, has
erroneously passed the Impugned Order without providing opportunity of
hearing to the Appellant. The Impugned Order is merely based upon surmises
and conjectures. Copy of order dated 13.07.2023 “Impugned Order” is
attached as Annexure ‘F’.

8. That the Impugned Order passed by Hon’ble Judge in Chambers is illegal,

arbitrary, conjectural, baseless, and contrary to law and facts. It has been
rendered without due and proper opportunity of hearing having been
provided to Appellant. Therefore, this Intra Court Appeal is being filed before
this Hon’ble Court, amongst others, on the following:

GROUNDS

a. That the subject writ petition, wherein the Impugned

Order has been rendered, was not maintainable since an
alternative adequate remedy was available to the
4
 Respondent No. 1 before the learned trial court, to seek
bail and/or his release from custody in terms of s. 9(b) of
NAO, 1999 at appropriate stage, if at all warranted. The
preemptive grant of such discretionary relief through
extra-ordinary constitutional jurisdiction, even before the
stage of apprehension of arrest and based solely on
conjectures and surmises, renders nugatory the
machinery and the hierarchy established through the
NAO, 1999.

b. That the Impugned Order is tantamount to giving

Respondent No. 1 a carte blanche, and granting him
complete impunity from arrest, which protection is
afforded exclusively to the President and a Governor
(during their term) pursuant to Articles 248(2) and 248(3)
of the Constitution. In extending the scope of such
protection to a layman (albeit former chief minister) tends
to derogate from the constitutional structure and scheme,
as also is a manifestation of judicial overreach and is an
attempt at judicial legislation, which have been
deprecated by August Supreme Court in, among others,
Mian Irfan Bashir vs. The Deputy Commissioner (Lahore)
etc., PLD 2021 SC 571.

c. That the Impugned Order is in the nature of a universal

bail order, which is a concept alien to the criminal justice
system. Thus the Impugned Order tends to give unequal
and preferential treatment to the Respondent No. 1, in
grave departure from the constitutional edicts enshrined
in, among others, Article 25 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the Impugned Order imperils the safe
administration of justice.

d. That the Impugned Order undermines the exercise of

discretion by the learned trial court which, while
subsequently being fully seized of the matter and after
gaining full view of the allegations against Respondent
5
 No. 1 and investigation being carried out by Appellant, as
also after hearing both parties, deemed it appropriate to
extend the remand of the Respondent No. 1 multiple
times. Ad arguendo, even if there was an iota of evidence
of malice or bad faith in the proceedings commenced
against Respondent No. 1, the learned trial court was
fully empowered to discharge the said Respondent
and/or to otherwise enlarge him on bail. The Impugned
Order, accordingly, having been issued without due
regard to trial proceedings and/or discretion exercised by
learned trial court, and without any of the orders of
learned trial court having been impugned before the
Hon’ble Court in the subject petition, is a departure from
the celebrated principles enshrined in the dicta laid down
by superior courts regulating the exercise of
constitutional jurisdiction, and is against the comity of
judicial structure. It further tends to prejudice the
determination of proceedings pending before learned
trial court, thus is unlawful.

e. That it is an admitted fact the accused persons including

Respondent No. 1 (as also, Monis Elahi, Mehr Azmat (SE)
along with other co-accused persons) malafidely approved
schemes under supplementary grants and awarded
contracts to their favorite contractors against
bribe/kickbacks in sheer violation of rules. Accused
persons in connivance with each other made fraudulent
advance payments to contractors without work done at
site. Thus, the accused persons including Respondent No.
1 misused their authority to get illegal gains, and caused
huge loss to Government Exchequer, thereby committed
the offenses of corruption & corrupt practices as defined
under section 9 (a) punishable under section 10 of NAO,
1999. The appellant / NAB performed his statutory
obligation mandated by Section 18, 19, & 24 of NAO, 1999
under the command of Article 4 & 8 of Constitution of
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Hence, no illegal or
over act committed by the appellant.

6
f. That according to Section 3 of NAO 1999, the provision of
NAO, 1999 have overriding effect over any other law for
the time being in force. Hence, the same had to be given
effect accordingly, and relief given to the Respondent No.
1 though order 13.07.2023 gnaws away the sanctity and
priority vested upon the administration of NAO, 1999
through the Appellant.

g. That it has been held by the August Supreme Court of

Pakistan in CP No. 1128 of 2020, titled as “NAB vs. Agha
Siraj Khan Durrani etc., CP No. 1128-1135 of 2020” vide
its order dated 17.03.2021 that “offences under NAB
Ordinance, 1999 fall within the ambit of serious crimes for
which the law does not allow bail as the right (ref: Section 9(b)
of NAB Ordinance, 1999). Therefore, considering the gravity
and seriousness of such offences, we consider that is will be
appropriate if bail petitions in respect of these offences are heard
by Division Benches comprised of Senior Judges”. However,
in the instant case Hon’ble Single Judge in Chambers
passed the Impugned Order while hearing an ancillary
matter not directly pertaining to Appellant. This is
despite the fact that Respondent No. 1 was arrested in
heinous white collar crime of misusing his authority for
the benefit of himself and his close associates and family
members, at the cost of substantial loss to the public. At
the same time, it is pertinent to mention here that, in
accordance with the dictates of August Supreme Court as
noted above, and in consonance with the provisions of s.
32(b) of the NAO, 1999, it has been the historical practice
that all matters pertaining to the Appellant (and not just
appeals) are heard and decided by a division bench of this
Hon’ble Court. This factor has been completely ignored
and shrugged aside by the Hon’ble Single Judge in
Chambers.

7
h. That the Hon’ble Single Judge in Chambers erred in Law
by misinterpreting the provisions of NAO, 1999 and
proceeded to accept the Petition as prayed for.

i. That the Impugned Order is in violation of the celebrated

principle enshrined in the legal maxim, Audi alteram
partem, since it has been passed without affording any
opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. Therefore, the
Impugned Order is manifestly against the principles of
natural justice, and is liable to be set aside on this score
alone.

j. That it is held by the Apex Court of Pakistan in “Abdul

Qudoos vs. Commandant Frontier Constabulary, PKP
etc., CP No. 2021 of 2019” vide its order dated 04.10.2022
that “it is the foremost duty of the Court and Tribunal to do
complete justice. A patent and obvious error or oversight on the
part of Court in any order or decision may be reviewed sanguine
to the renowned legal maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit”
which is a well settled enunciation and articulation of law
expressing that no man should suffer because of the fault of the
Court or an act of the Court shall prejudice no one and this
principle also denotes the extensive pathway for the safe
administration of justice. It is interrelated and intertwined
with the state of affairs where the Court is under an obligation
to reverse the wrong done to a party by the act of Court which
is an elementary doctrine and tenet to the system of
administration of justice beyond doubt that no person should
suffer because of a delay in procedure or the fault of the Court.
This is a de rigueur sense of duty in the administration of
justice that the Court and Tribunal should become conscious
and cognizant that as a consequence of their mistake, nobody
should become a victim of injustice and in the event of any
injustice or harm suffered by mistake of the Court, it should be
remedied by making necessary correction forthwith. If the
Court is satisfied that it has committed a mistake, then such
person should be restored to the position which he would have
8
 acquired if the mistake did not happen”. Accordingly,
therefore, it is trite that an act of court shall prejudice no
one. Notwithstanding, despite the fact the Appellant was
arrayed as a respondent (No. 4) in subject writ petition, it
received no caution, summon, or notice what so ever
which may alert the Appellant to act or to restrain from
acting in any particular manner. More importantly, the
Impugned Order does not even hint upon any kind of
presence of the Appellant or representation on behalf
thereof.

k. That, even otherwise, the concluding para of the

Impugned Order does not reflect any direction or
command to Appellant, enjoining it to act or restraining
it from acting in any manner. It is fundamental that
prohibition cannot be presumed, until given specifically.
Relance in this behalf is placed upon “Abdul Rashid vs.
Saeeda Begum, 1994 SCMR 1888”.

l. That the Impugned Order was passed on 13.7.2023, which

did not hold field after 14.7.2023 (as it had been
suspended by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in
“Province of Punjab vs. Pervaiz Elahi etc., ICA No.
47355/2023”). The Respondent No. 1 was arrested on
14.8.2023, that is while no such order was in field or in the
knowledge of the Appellant. It is also pertinent to
mention here that when the Respondent No. 1 was
arrested in criminal proceedings under cogent grounds
and in a lawful manner, and the arrest thereof continues
to be regulated by the learned trial court by
granting/extending physical remand, then the
retrospective resurrection of Impugned Order and release
of Respondent No. 1 pursuant thereto is a manifest
departure from the remedies available under criminal
administration of justice, and tends to undermine judicial
structure and hierarchy. The Respondent No. 1 could not

9
 have sought bail and/or his release may not have been
ordered, except in the manner provided in s. 9(b) of NAO,
1999.

m. That, for the sake of completeness and propriety, it is

clarified that although Province of Punjab had earlier
filed an appeal against the Impugned Order (ICA No.
47355/2023) but, even in the said case, the Appellant
neither received any caution, notice, or summons
whatsoever, nor was granted a due and proper
opportunity of hearing. Even otherwise, among others,
the grounds raised and agitated in the instant appeal have
neither been raised nor adverted upon in the decision
(dated 21.08.2023) rendered in the said appeal by the
Province of Punjab. Particularly, this is despite the fact
that at the relevant time when the said appeal was
decided, the Respondent No. 1 was in the custody of
Appellant, on physical remand. Thus, the said appeal and
decision rendered thereupon is distinguishable in the
facts and circumstances of the case.

n. That it is notable that Appellant is admittedly the

premium investigation agency, established under NAO,
1999 as an independent body. In its matters and affairs, it
is represented through its own law officers, and the
advocate general’s office and/or even the attorney
general’s office are not empowered or delegated the
responsibility to represent, concede, or make any
statement on behalf of the Appellant. The Appellant is
autonomous and self-governing, and has a separate legal
persona, therefore, representation thereof was necessary
and proper for just, lawful, and equitable determination
of the matter, and issues raised therein.

o. That without prejudice to the stance & grounds taken by

the Appellant, Hon’ble Single Judge in Chambers
through the Impugned Order had actually directed that
10
“petitioner shall not be arrested in any blind or unknown FIRs
or in pending inquiries which shall be competed after providing
statement of allegation and opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner under the Punjab Anti-corruption Rules, 2014 or
Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974”. Quite
conspicuously, it contains no direction to Appellant.
However, the said portion of Impugned Order has
subsequently been misinterpreted as to extend to any
inquiries and investigations being undertaken by
Appellant and to, in alike terms, circumscribe the powers
thereof to arrest. Notably, August Supreme Court of
Pakistan has already settled the law on the subject matter
in “NAB vs. Syed Jalil Arshad and another, CP No.
18/2017”, in the following terms: “The learned Special
Prosecutor, NAB, states that as far as the case of Respondent
No. 1 is concerned, the NAB presently has no intention to
arrest the said Respondent No. 1 and the NAB stands by a
statement made, in this behalf, before the learned High Court as
reflected in the impugned Order. 2. The grievance raised is that
the said Order, more particularly, its concluding lines may be
misinterpreted to imply that NAB cannot arrest an accused
without informing him first. On examination of the National
Accountability Ordinance, 1999, reveals that no such
limitation has been imposed upon NAB, in this behalf. Needless
to say, if sufficient material has been gathered to connect a
person to the commission of an offence, obviously NAB can
arrest such a person. However, we do not expect that NAB to
misuse such power. 3. Consequently, this Civil Petition is
disposed of with the above observations”. The interpretation
of Impugned Order subsequently preferred not only
deviates from the aforesaid law laid down by the August
Court, but goes a step beyond to grant complete impunity
to the Respondent No. 1, which is impermissible and in
derogation of law.

11
 p. That the Impugned Order is contrary to facts and Law on
the subject. Therefore, same is liable to be set aside.

q. That the Petition was filed before this Hon’ble Court

under Article 199 of the Constitution, and the same
having been allowed by Hon’ble Single Judge in
Chambers, can be assailed in Intra Court Appeal before
this Hon’ble Court.

Prayer

That in view of the above submissions, it is therefore, most respectfully

prayed that this Intra Court Appeal be accepted and Impugned Order dated
13.07.2023 be ordered to be set aside, being in derogation of law and facts, in the
best interest of Justice.

It is further prayed that pending adjudication of main Appeal, by way of

interim relief, operation of Impugned Order be also ordered to be suspended.

Any other relief as deemed appropriate may also be granted.

Appellant (NAB)

Through

Syed Waqar Hussain Naqvi

Dy. PGA, NAB Lahore
CNIC No. 35201-1479834-9
Cell No. 0314-4247555
CC# 15078

CERTIFICATE. This is the first Intra Court Appeal on the subject.

Petitioner (NAB)

Through

Syed Waqar Hussain Naqvi

Dy. PGA, NAB Lahore
CNIC No. 35201-1479834-9
Cell No. 0314-4247555
CC# 15078
Note:-
The office is requested to place the record of WP No. 45360/2023 along with
instant appeal.

12
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

ICA No. __________/2023

In

WP No. 45360/2023

NAB through Dy PGA

Vs.

Pervaiz Elahi etc

---------------------------------

Intra Court Appeal:- Under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972
against the Order dated 13.07.2023, passed by
Honorable Single Judge in Chambers thereby accepted
the Writ Petition no. 45360/2023

---------------------------------

AFFIDAVIT OF : Syed Waqar Hussain Naqvi, Dy PGA, NAB Complex,

Thokar Niaz Baig, Lahore

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath
as under:-

That the contents of the accompanying appeal are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge belief and information and nothing has been concealed therein. The
contents of accompanying appeal may very kindly be treated as an integral part of
this affidavit.

Deponent

VERIFICATION

Verified on oath at Lahore on this ______ of September, 2023 that the contents of the
above affidavit are correct and true as per the record and to the best of the knowledge
and belief of the deponent and that nothing material has knowingly been concealed.

Deponent

13
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

CM No. __________/2023
in
ICA No. __________/2023
In
WP No. 45360/2023

NAB through Dy PGA

Vs.
Pervaiz Elahi etc

Application UNDER SECTION 151 CPC READ WITH ALL ENABLING

PROVISION OF LAW FOR SUSPENSION OPERATION OF
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.07.2023, PASSED BY
SINGLE JUDGE IN CHAMBER IN WRIT PETITION NO.
45360/2023

Respectfully Sheweth:

1. That the petitioner has filed Intra Court Appeal (ICA) to set aside order
dated 13.07.2023, passed by Single Judge in Chamber in WP No.
45360/2023.

2. That the ICA is yet to be fixed for hearing in this Hon’ble Court.

3. That the petitioner has an excellent prime facie case in his favour. The
learned Judge in Chamber has erred in law by misinterpreting the
provision of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and proceeded
to accept the petition as prayed for, whereas, a dedicated Division
Bench had been constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Hon’ble
Court for dealing with matters relating to NAB but petition was heard
without hearing of NAB and decided by the Single Bench.

4. That if the operation of impugned order will not be suspended,

petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss.

14
 Under the circumstance, it is respectfully prayed that the operation of
impugned order dated 13.07.2023 may kindly be suspended till the decision of main
ICA.

Petitioner (NAB)

Through:

Syed Waqar Hussain Naqvi

Dy. PGA, NAB Lahore
CNIC No. 35201-1479834-9
Cell No. 0314-4247555
CC# 15078

National Accountability Bureau,

Lahore.

15
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

CM No. __________/2023
in

ICA No. __________/2023

In
WP No. 45360/2023

NAB through Dy PGA

Vs.

Pervaiz Elahi etc

Application UNDER SECTION 151 CPC READ WITH ALL ENABLING

PROVISION OF LAW FOR SUSPENSION OPERATION OF
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.07.2023, PASSED BY
SINGLE JUDGE IN CHAMBER IN WP NO. 45360/2023

AFFIDAVIT OF : Syed Waqar Hussain Naqvi, Dy PGA, NAB Complex,

Thokar Niaz Baig, Lahore

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath
as under:-

That the contents of the accompanying appeal are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge belief and information and nothing has been concealed therein. The
contents of accompanying appeal may very kindly be treated as an integral part of
this affidavit.

Deponent

VERIFICATION

Verified on oath at Lahore on this ______ of September, 2023 that the contents of the
above affidavit are correct and true as per the record and to the best of the knowledge
and belief of the deponent and that nothing material has knowingly been concealed.

Deponent

16
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

ICA No. __________/2023

In
WP No. 45360/2023

NAB through Dy PGA

Vs.
Pervaiz Elahi etc
---------------------------------

Intra Court Appeal:- Under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972
against the Order dated 13.07.2023, passed by
Honorable Single Judge in Chambers thereby accepted
the Writ Petition no. 45360/2023

INDEX
S# Description of Documents. Annexure Page No.
1. Court fee -
2. ICA with Affidavit 1 – 13
Copy of Inquiry Authorization Letter dated 14
3. A
9.06.2023
Copy of Investigation Authorization Letter dated 15
4. B
18.07.2023
C 16
5. Copy of Warrants of Arrest dated 11.08.2023
Copies of Remanded order dated 15.8.2023, 17 – 26
6. D
21.8.2023 & 29.8.2023
Copy of writ petition No. 45360/2023, Titled as 27 – 37
7. “Pervaiz Elahi Vs. Care Taker Government of E
Punjab etc”
Copy of Impugned Order dated 13.07.2023, passed 38 - 50
8. in WP No. 45360/2023, Titled as “Pervaiz Elahi Vs. F
Care Taker Government of Punjab etc”
Direction of Competent Authority regarding filing 51
9. G
of ICA
Application u/s 151 Cr. PC for suspension of 52 – 54
10.
operation of impugned order alongwith affidavit
Application u/s 151 CPC for Dispensation of certified 55 - 56
11.
copies of the documents alongwith affidavit

Appellant (NAB)

Through:

Syed Waqar Hussain Naqvi

Dy. PGA, NAB Lahore
CNIC No. 35201-1479834-9
Cell No. 0314-4247555
CC# 15078
17
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

CM No. ____________/2023
in
ICA No. __________/2023
In
WP No. 45360/2023

NAB through Dy PGA

Vs.
Pervaiz Elahi etc

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 C.P.C FOR DISPENSATION OF

CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE ANNEXURES

Respectfully Sheweth,

1. That the Applicant / Petitioner has filed the above titled writ petition before
this Hon’ble Court, which is yet to be fixed for hearing.

2. That the petitioner has filed uncertified copies of Annexures with the
petition as the certified copies are not available at the moment.

3. That the petitioner will file the certified copies when available.

Under the above circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that filing of

certified copies of Annexure may kindly be dispensed with in accordance with law.

Petitioner (NAB)

Syed Waqar Hussain Naqvi

Dy. PGA, NAB Lahore
CNIC No. 35201-1479834-9
Cell No. 0314-4247555
CC# 15078

National Accountability Bureau,

Lahore.
18
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

CM No. ____________/2023
in
ICA No. __________/2023
In
WP No. 45360/2023

NAB through Dy PGA

Vs.
Pervaiz Elahi etc

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 C.P.C FOR DISPENSATION OF

CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE ANNEXURES

AFFIDAVIT OF: Syed Waqar Hussain Naqvi, Dy PGA, National Accountability

Bureau, Thokhar Niaz Baig, Lahore

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath
as under:-

That the contents of the accompanying application are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, belief and information and nothing has been concealed
therein. The contents of accompanying application may very kindly be treated as an
integral part of this affidavit.

Deponent
Verification
Verification on oath at Lahore on this ________ of September, 2023 that the contents of the
above affidavit are correct and true as per the record and to the best of the knowledge and
belief of the deponent and that nothing material has knowingly been concealed.

Deponent

19
 GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, LAHORE
THOKAR NIAZ BAIG, MULTAN ROAD, LAHORE

CERTIFICATE

Intra Court Appeal:- Under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972
against the Order dated 13.07.2023, passed by Honorable
Single Judge in Chambers, thereby accepted the Writ
Petition No. 45360/2023

The entire record and impugned order dated 13.07.2023 have been examined
with care and caution. It would be in the interest of justice that the order dated
13.07.2023, passed by the Hon’ble Lahore High Court, Lahore in WP No. 45360/2023,
titled as “Pervaiz Elahi Vs. Care Taker Government of Punjab etc” be assailed before
appropriate forum. Therefore, the Deputy Prosecutor General Accountability (DPGA)
NAB Lahore is directed to file Intra Court Appeal (ICA) under Section 3 of Law
Reforms Ordinance, 1972 in the Hon’ble Lahore High Court, Lahore.

Amjad Majeed Aulakh

Director General
NAB Lahore
Dated: 4th September, 2023

20