NAB, Saleh al­lowed to sort out out­stand­ing amount against Karkey

The Pak Banker - - Front Page -

IS­LAM­ABAD

The Supreme Court on Wed­nes­day al­lowed Pros­e­cu­tor Gen­eral of the Na­tional Ac­count­abil­ity Bureau (PG NAB) Karim Khan Agha and Pak­istan Mus­lim League-Q MNA Makhdoom Faisal Saleh Hayat to sit to­gether for the set­tle­ment of $243 mil­lion al­leged out­stand­ing amount against Karkey rental power plant, a Turk­ish ship mounted power plant and ap­prise it on Thurs­day with a state­ment.

A three-mem­ber bench headed by Chief Jus­tice Iftikhar Muham­mad Chaudhry agreed with the PG NAB to sit to­gether with Faisal Saleh Hayat, the pe­ti­tioner, in the reg­is­trar of­fice to set­tle out the dis­puted amount.

Dur­ing the pro­ceed­ings, KK Agha re­it­er­ated his ear­lier stance that the NAB had no author­ity to over­take a Turk­ish flag car­rier ship un­der the NAB Or­di­nance and the undertaking given in this re­gard had been with­drawn.

Jus­tice Gulzar Ahmed told him that they could not with­draw such undertaking uni­lat­er­ally.

He said that the court's ob­jec­tive was that the amount, which be­longed to the coun­try, should be se­cured.

The Chief Jus­tice said that the court had not di­rected the Ad­di­tional Pros­e­cu­tor Gen­eral NAB rather he came for­ward vol­un­tar­ily and sub­mit­ted an undertaking.

KK Agha con­tended that he be­lieved that it was done af­ter a di­rec­tive of the bench. The Ad­di­tional Pros­e­cu­tor Gen­eral NAB Ak­bar Tar­rar said that he had al­ready prayed the court to con­sider the is­sue.

The Chief Jus­tice told him that they be­lieved in their or­der and the undertaking sub­mit­ted by him. The PG NAB con­tended that the of­fi­cial was not au­tho­rized to sub­mit such undertaking.

He said that the NAB stood with its cal­cu­la­tions and drew at­ten­tion of the bench to­wards the fig­ures which were al­ready sub­mit­ted with it.

PML-Q leg­is­la­tor and pe­ti­tioner Faisal Saleh Hayat said that af­ter the court's de­ci­sion on rental power plants on March 30, no ac­tion was taken for the im­ple­men­ta­tion af­ter a lapse of seven months.

He claimed that $243 mil­lion amount was out­stand­ing against the Turk­ish RPP, adding, $79 mil­lion was given as ad­vance pay­ment, whereas $103 mil­lion was paid as rental charges be­sides, $15 mil­lion as in­ter­est rate.

He said that dur­ing the pro­ceed­ings on the RPPs case, out of 9 RPPs, amount was re­cov­ered from five plants while the NAB had to re­cover amount from four oth­ers.

In the Karkey case, the NAB had re­ceived $17 mil­lion as set­tle­ment amount and an ad­ver­tise­ment was also pub­lished by the Karkey, which was never de­clined by the NAB, he added.

The NAB in­ves­ti­ga­tion of­fi­cer Colonel (retd) Shahzad Bhatti main­tained that no plea bar­gain was reached with the Kareky.

Re­ject­ing the pe­ti­tioner's al­le­ga­tions, NAB PG KK Agha said that the author­ity pro­ceeded un­der the Na­tional Ac­count­abil­ity Or­di­nance, which en­vis­aged plea bar­gain and vol­un­tar­ily re­turn op­tions etc and said that they had com­plied with the court's direc­tions.

He also ap­prised the bench that a notice upon Karkey was also served un­der the court's di­rec­tive but no­body ap­peared. Fur­ther hear­ing was ad­journed till Thurs­day.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Pakistan

© PressReader. All rights reserved.