PESHAWAR: A Peshawar High Court bench on Thursday issued bailable warrants for the arrest of the provincial home secretary and inspector general of police over their failure to submit replies to an appeal filed by a schoolteacher against the placement of his name in the Fourth Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Chief Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth and Justice Abdul Shakoor expressed annoyance at the two officials` non-compliance with the court`s orders and observed that it would be appropriate to issue their bailable warrants.

Additional advocate general Waqar Ahmad Khan informed the bench that he had informed the two respondents about the court`s orders but they didn`t act accordingly.

The petitioner, Fakhr-i-Alam, a resident of Adezai village in Peshawar, claimed that not only his name was placed in the Fourth Schedule to the ATA but he hadn`t receive salary for more than two years as well due to the blocking of his bank account.

Javed Akhtar, lawyer for the appellant, said his client worked in the Government Primary School No 2 Adezai, Peshawar, and learned recently that the government had included his name in the Fourth Schedule, which carried the names of persons having links with terrorist outfits.

He said the appellant had filed a petition last year challenging the order of the provincial government in that respect.

The lawyer pointed out that on May 9, 2017, a bench of the high court had converted that petition into an appeal under Section 11-EE of the ATA asking the home secretary to decide it within 30 days.

He said the appellant had waited for many months for decision on the appeal but the secretary did not do it despite being formally reminded about it many times.

The lawyer said the appellant was left with no option but to file the appeal with the high court seeking orders to set aside the provincial government`s move to place his name in the Fourth Schedule.

He contended that the appellant was a law-abiding and educated citizen and that he was not dealt with in accordance with the law.

The lawyer pointed out that the appellant was named in three FIRs related to personal enmity, which got nothing to do with terrorism and that he had already been acquitted by the court in those cases.-Bureau Report