Islamabad - The federation has prayed to the Supreme Court to set aside the order of Islamabad High Court (IHC) single member that suspended the federal government’s order of 18th December in the interest of justice.

The federal government Thursday filed the civil petition for leave to appeal under clause (3) of article 185 of the constitution against the IHC 29th December 2014 interim order. The petition said the IHC had passed the order on complete misreading, non-reading of the law and record and without due consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances. It says Lakhvi has committed an offence outside Pakistan and the country is under international obligations, which exclusively fall within the executive domain, as set out in article 10(4) of the constitution.

“It is well settled law that the courts should follow the footsteps of the executive and should not sit in appeal over the decision of the executive,” said the petition, adding the remedy provided under Article 199, being discretionary, is not to be granted as a matter of course.

The federation questioned whether without finding any illegality with the detention order, the High Court is empowered under article 199 of the constitution to interfere at interim stage with the detention order passed by the competent authority.

And whether the detention order of the single judge bench of IHC has exceeded his jurisdiction by interfering with the detention order of the Lakhvi could be suspended.  The writ petition by Lakhvi was also premature, the petition said.

The federation also said Lahkvi on 23rd December 2014 made representation to the federation under section 3(6) of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order (WPMPO) 1960.

 The section 3(6) requires, “once a detention order has been made under Section 3 of the WPMPO 1960, the authority shall communicate the ground on which the order has been made and to inform the person detained.”

The petition said on 29th December 2014, only four working days later, the single bench of IHC held through the order: “The matter cannot be prolonged for an indefinite period at the whims of respondents.”