ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has taken up the dispute between the capital administration and the Naanbai association on the price decrease of Roti. The court has requested that the deputy commissioner come before the bench on Thursday.
The deputy commissioner was instructed by IHC Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri to make a personal appearance on Thursday, which is today.
He was considering a case that contested the validity of a government announcement that cut the maximum price of Roti and Naan by more than 36%. The court accepted the petition for the hearing after hearing the opening arguments and ordered the ICT administrator to come before it the following day.
According to the information, the ICT administration and the Punjab government both released notices in April that reduced the price of Roti.
The cost of naan and roti was announced by the Islamabad administration to be Rs. 20 and Rs. 16, respectively. According to the petitioner, the pricing was set at Rs 25 for roti and Rs 30 for naan just four months ago. The Capital Naanbai Association, an Islamabad-based union representing more than 3,000 tandoors, filed a lawsuit against this ruling. Barrister Umer Ijaz Gilani represented the petitioners.
Judge Jahangiri questioned the petitioner during the hearing, questioning why the notification was contested despite appearing to be for the public’s advantage. In response to the inquiry, Barrister Gilani stated that no system of subsidies had been put in place in the case in accordance with the price of flour. The attorney continued, “Under the current situation, over 3,000 tandoors in the capital territory are facing financial loss due to a cut in reasonable profit.”
The attorney further argued that the district magistrate, in the course of using his jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977, made the notification on April 15, 2024, without having the necessary legal authorization. He emphasized that only the federal government was permitted to issue such a notification under Section 3 of the statute. The order was issued by a “incompetent authority,” according to Barrister Gilani, who requested the court to set aside the notice.
Following a quick hearing, the bench made a decision and gave the DC notice. “The points brought up need thought. Notification of the participants. In order to support the court on the following hearing date, [the] deputy commissioner is instructed to designate a senior law-knowing officer who is well-versed in the case’s circumstances to appear in person and provide documentation.
It was also instructed that the advocate general of Islamabad and the additional attorney general appoint “law-knowing officers” to personally present in court and provide assistance.
The issue was later postponed until Thursday (today).
