IN THE HONORABLE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

CM No. ___________/2009 In Writ Petition No. 9877/2007 Re: Mahmood Ahmad Versus Government of Pakistan & Others

APPLICATION U/S 151 CPC ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 FOR SEEKING PERMISSION TO PROCEED WITH THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE APPELLATE BENCH OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 2
Respectfully Sheweth, 1. That the titled Petition is pending adjudication in this Honorable Court wherein next date of hearing is not fixed. 2. That Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 28-05-2005 caused inspection of the record of the Crescent Standard Investment Bank Limited (CSIBL; a non-banking finance company) carried out by Respondent No. 4. Petitioner was at the relevant time Chief Executive of the CSIBL. As a result of the inspection carried out as aforesaid, serious irregularities and infractions of law were found to exist in the

financial records and conduct of business of the CSIBL. Resultantly, Petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice. 3. That Petitioner duly participated in the Show Cause proceedings and filed detailed replies before the adjudicating authority. It is pertinent to point out that Petitioner did not raise objections regarding the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 2 and vires of the various Rules and Regulations framed by Respondent no. 2 under which inspection as aforesaid was carried out and Show Cause Notice issued to the Petitioner until an adverse order dated 04-09-07 was passed by Respondent No. 3. Petitioner thereupon filed a statutory appeal u/s 33 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act 1997 before the Appellate Bench of Respondent no.2. 4. That at the time when Petitioner filed the aforesaid Appeal u/s 33 of the SECP Act, 1997, a temporary deficiency of members existed in Respondent no. 2 as instead of full strength of five members, only three members were appointed to the Respondent No. 2. Petitioner thereupon filed the titled writ petition wherein for the first time he sought to challenge the Rules and Regulations framed by Respondent No. 2 in respect of NBFCs, jurisdiction of the Respondent no. 2 to initiate and determine proceedings against him and various notifications/SROs issued by Respondent no. 2. The said challenges were never raised during the proceedings before the division bench of the Respondent no. 2 which culminated in adverse order dated 04-09-2007. 5. That Respondent no. 2 is now working with the full sanctioned strength of five members and carrying out its statutory functions including those imposed under section 33 of the SECP Act. It would be pertinent to point out that the Honorable Sindh High Court in writ petition no. 2136/07 titled as Shezi Nacvi versus SECP and Others vide order dated 23-04-2008 passed in CM No. 2716/08 directed that proceedings pending before the Appellate Bench of SECP (Respondent No. 2) may continue and final decision of the Appellate Bench be placed before the Honorable Sindh High Court. It may be submitted that Petitioner before the Sindh High Court is a non-executive director of CSIBL who had called in question the order dated

04-09-2007 before the honorable Sindh High Court. (Order dated 23-04-2008 of the honorable Sindh High Court is attached herewith as Mark-A). 6. That it would be in interest of justice that a direction may be passed by this Honorable Court to the same effect as was passed by the Honorable Sindh High Court so that persons similarly placed may be dealt with similarly. Petitioner would suffer no prejudice in case such direction is made as after decision by the Appellate Bench, the matter under section 33 of the SECP Act, 1997 will ultimately come before this Honorable Court for final determination.

In view of above, it is most respectfully prayed that the Appellate Bench of Respondent No. 2 presently seized of the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against order dated 04-09-2007 may be allowed with the hearing and determination of the Appeal strictly in accordance with law.

Applicant/Respondent No. 2 Through

SALMAN AKRAM RAJA M.A. (Cantab) LL.M. (London) LL.M. (Harvard) Advocate Supreme Court 33-C, Main Gulberg, Lahore

SHEHZAD HAIDER Advocate High Court 33-C, Main Gulberg, Lahore

IN THE HONORABLE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

CM No. ___________/2009 In Writ Petition No. 9877/2007 Re: Mahmood Ahmad Versus Government of Pakistan & Others

APPLICATION U/S 151 CPC ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 FOR SEEKING PERMISSION TO PROCEED WITH THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE APPELLATE BENCH OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 2

Affidavit of:

Mr. , Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan, ___________

I, the above-named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that 1. That the titled Petition is pending adjudication in this Honorable Court wherein next date of hearing is not fixed.

2. That Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 28-05-2005 caused inspection of the record of the Crescent Standard Investment Bank Limited (CSIBL; a non-banking finance company) carried out by Respondent No. 4. Petitioner was at the relevant time Chief Executive of the CSIBL. As a result of the inspection carried out as aforesaid, serious irregularities and infractions of law were found to exist in the financial records and conduct of business of the CSIBL. Resultantly, Petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice. 3. That Petitioner duly participated in the Show Cause proceedings and filed detailed replies before the adjudicating authority. It is pertinent to point out that Petitioner did not raise objections regarding the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 2 and vires of the various Rules and Regulations framed by Respondent no. 2 under which inspection as aforesaid was carried out and Show Cause Notice issued to the Petitioner until an adverse order dated 04-09-07 was passed by Respondent No. 3. Petitioner thereupon filed a statutory appeal u/s 33 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act 1997 before the Appellate Bench of Respondent no.2. 4. That at the time when Petitioner filed the aforesaid Appeal u/s 33 of the SECP Act, 1997, a temporary deficiency of members existed in Respondent no. 2 as instead of full strength of five members, only three members were appointed to the Respondent No. 2. Petitioner thereupon filed the titled writ petition wherein for the first time he sought to challenge the Rules and Regulations framed by Respondent No. 2 in respect of NBFCs, jurisdiction of the Respondent no. 2 to initiate and determine proceedings against him and various notifications/SROs issued by Respondent no. 2. The said challenges were never raised during the proceedings before the division bench of the Respondent no. 2 which culminated in adverse order dated 04-09-2007. 5. That Respondent no. 2 is now working with the full sanctioned strength of five members and carrying out its statutory functions including those imposed under section 33 of the SECP Act. It would be pertinent to point out that the Honorable Sindh High Court in writ petition no. 2136/07 titled as Shezi Nacvi versus SECP

and Others vide order dated 23-04-2008 passed in CM No. 2716/08 directed that proceedings pending before the Appellate Bench of SECP (Respondent No. 2) may continue and final decision of the Appellate Bench be placed before the Honorable Sindh High Court. It may be submitted that Petitioner before the Sindh High Court is a non-executive director of CSIBL who had called in question the order dated 04-09-2007 before the honorable Sindh High Court. (Order dated 23-04-2008 of the honorable Sindh High Court is attached herewith as Mark-A). 6. That it would be in interest of justice that a direction may be passed by this Honorable Court to the same effect as was passed by the Honorable Sindh High Court so that persons similarly placed may be dealt with similarly. Petitioner would suffer no prejudice in case such direction is made as after decision by the Appellate Bench, the matter under section 33 of the SECP Act, 1997 will ultimately come before this Honorable Court for final determination.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION: It is verified on oath at _______ on this _____ day of _________, 2009 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT