OUR STAFF REPORTER ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court on Tuesday again issued notice to the Federal Secretary Finance to appear before court with concise report on appointment of Chairman Security Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) whereas five others respondents were also directed to submit comprehensive statement of facts within fifteen days. A three-member bench headed by Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan was hearing a constitutional petition filed by Muhammad Ashraf Tiwana through Afnan Karim Kundi under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution. Sheikh Akram represented the chairman and all other office-bearers of SECP involved in the case during the hearing. Tiwana filed the petition on August 23 making Federation through Secretary Finance Division, Ministry of Finance, SECP through its Chairman, Chairman Security and Exchange Policy Board (SEPB) who is Secretary Finance Division, Muhammad Ali Ghulam Muhammad Chairman SECP, Tahir Mehmood Commissioner (Company Law Division) SECP and Bushra Aslam SECPs Director Human Resource Department as respondents. The petitioner contended that SECP Chairman Muhammad Ali Ghulam Muhammad appointment was a sheer violation of law, equity, justice, fairness, public policy and ultra vires of the law, Constitution and principles of natural justice. The petitioner pleaded that appointment of those individuals as Commissioner or as SECP Chairman who were or have been members of stock and commodity exchanges, brokers, directors and /or shareholders of brokerage companies is against the law. The petitioner also requested to strike down some clauses of the SECP Act including sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the SECP Act as it was being ultra vires to Articles 73 and 75 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Tiwana contended that Federal government be directed to introduce necessary amendments in the existing SECP Act and the new SECP Bill pending in the Parliament to prohibit appointment of individuals with conflict of interest as Commissioners and Chairman of SECP in future should also ensure the avoidance of Regulatory Capture of SECP in line with best international practices. The petitioner further requested to strike down those sub clauses from SECP Services Rules which he claimed were ultra vires of Articles 4, 9, 10A, 14,18 and 25 of the Constitution and in contravention of Section 23 of the Contract Act 1872 and Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act. It was also revealed in the petition that SECP and Secretary Finance Division who is the Chairman SEPB be directed to ensure that SECP Service Rules are appropriately amended to afford its employee security of tenure and the benefit of procedural due process as required by the Constitution and principles of natural justice. The petitioner prayed that Chairman SECP and Chairman SEPB decision to abolish the Law Division of SECP be declared illegal for being mala fide against public interest and for violating Section 21 of the SECP Act. The court adjourned the hearing for 15 days.