ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday disposed of identical petitions against the Nov 2 `show of power` planned by the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) with a directive not to lock down the federal capital.

Babar Awan and Naeem Bokhari, counsel for PTI chairman Imran Khan, however expressed `no confidence` in Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui of the IHC and requested him to recuse himself from the hearing of petitions filed by the 11 chairmen of union councils, three lawyers and a student seeking court`s directive for the district administration and the PTI to confine the sit-in to a designated place.

Before making the request to the judge regarding his recusal, PTPs counsel Babar Awan and Naeem Bokhari, with the consent of the court, held a discussion at another place where they also sought instructions from the PTI leadership.

After a brief meeting, both the counsel, along with other PTI lawyers, reappeared in the courtroom where Mr Bokhari said: `You may recuse from hearing this case.

Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, instead of recusing himself from the hearing, disposed of the casewith a clear directive to the PTI to hold protest at the `Democracy Park and Speech Corner` at Parade Ground.

He, however, asked the PTPs counsel to challenge the order at a proper forum if it was not acceptable to them.

`We are not going to the Parade Ground, but challenging the order before the Supreme Court,` said Mr Awan while talking to media after the proceedings.

He said that the Supreme Court did not entertain the petition against PTPs protest while hearing a petition filed by Watan Party, adding that Justice Aamer Farooq of the IHC, while disposing of an identical petition, directed the petitioners to file an application before the commissioner.

The order of Justice Siddiqui, Awan said, was inconsistent with the earlier decisions of the apex court as well as of his fellow judge.

During the course of hearing, Mr Bokhari offered that the PTI would assemble at the designated place (Parade Ground), but he made it clear that the protest would not remain confined within the designated place.

`You may assemble, can protest for an indefinite period at the designated place and then you may disperse from there peacefully, Justice Siddiqui suggested.

To this, Mr Bokhari said that it was not clear how many peoplewould come and how many people could be accommodated at the designated place.

`If the number of people increases, you should go towards Express Highway instead of blocking the capital,` Justice Siddiqui added.

In the order, Justice Siddiqui said that if Imran Khan showed willingness to stage a demonstration at the designated place, the federal government and district administration should facilitate such activities.

The court noted that lodging a protest was a citizen`s fundamental right; however, nobody can be compelled, pressured or restrained to do what is not permissible under the law. `If any attempt to block or lock down the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) is made or disrupt the normal life of the city, the district administration shall act in accordance with the law,` Justice Siddiqui said.

He said the district administration should remain within the limits of law, adding that the administration was bound to protect citizens` rights as well as take all remedial steps to ensure fundamental rights.

Justice Siddiqui said that the speeches of Imran Khan, displayed in the courtroom during the hearing, had fully convinced thecourtthattheintentandobject was not merely of lodging of protest but was apparently a move tostop the elected government from functioning and performing dayto-day affairs.

He added that the speeches were also compelling citizens to remain within their premises which `obviously is a serious threat and tantamount to abridging rights of citizens`.

While referring to a Nov 6, 2015, order, Justice Siddiqui said that this court had already decided that a place `Democracy Park and Speech Corner` would be used for protest in the capital, but it seemed that the district administration was `sleeping` as it had not yet made the order public even after a year.

The court noted that the district administration, in compliance with the court orders, had informed the PTI chief about the designated place for protest; however, there was no reply.

Before the counsel expressed no-confidence in the bench, Mr Bokhari argued that only one paragraph in the petition said fundamental rights of the petitioners would be affected and other than that, it talked about security, national issues and other difficult times.

Mr Bokhari said he was instructed to say that it was government machinery blocking the roads, and not the PTI, adding that the previous court order must apply both ways.