PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has declared that Awami National Party central president Aimal Wali Khan, being a senator, could agitate in parliament his plea for formation of a fact-finding committee on the process of `militants` resettlement` in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

`So far as the plea of High Power Commission or judicial inquiry is concerned, suffice it to say that petitioner (Aimal Wali) at present is the member of upper house ofthe parliament i.e. Senate and being a senator can agitate the issue on floor of parliament and under the law, the federal government can constitute the commission,` rules a bench of the high court in its detailed judgement of a petition of Aimal Wali, which was rejected few weeks ago.

The bench consisting of Justice Syed Mohammad Attique Shah (now acting chief justice of PHC) and Justice Sahibzada Asadullah ruled: `Moreover, as per assertion of the petitioner, it was the previous elected government that initiated resettlement, however, that assembly on lapse of its statutory period no more exists, therefore, this petition has also become infructuous. However, the petitioner is at liberty to agitate his grievance before a proper and competent forum.

The petitioner, Aimal Wali, hadsought orders of the court for formation of a high-powered fact-finding committee on the `process of militants` resettlement and its link to the surge in acts of terrorism in the country.

He had requested the court to set a timeline for the committee`s probe, make it s findings public and ask federal and provincial governments to stop resettling terrorists in his home province.

He insisted that during the last PTI rule, a secret deal took place between militants and the then government, leading to resettlement of militants in parts of the province. He added that the deal also caused the acts of terrorism to surge in the country.

The bench ruled that it couldn`t interfere with a government policy on the ground that it was wrong or a better alternate was available.

`The scope of judicial reviewwhen examining a policy of the government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available,` the bench ruled.

`Legality of the policy and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy is the subject of judicial review,` it observed.

The bench observed that the available record suggested that the petitioner had not annexed any document that could be found violative of any of his fundamental rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution.

`Moreover, framing of various policies and strategies and thenpursuing or enforcing them is the function of the government of the day and no individual can claim as a matter of right his inclusion in the policy making or pursuing process,` the bench observed.

The court further observed: `No doubt, sometimes the government on fiscal and administrative issues does consult private individuals being experts on the subject like in the budgetary matters etc.

to seek their suggestions, but so far a move to start some peace process and talks with someone on any intricate and sensitive issue is concerned, suffice it to say that neither such process can be put into discussion with any individual or group of individuals nor he or the group can be taken into confidence or associated therewith.

`There is no denial to this fact that for the last few decades, thispart of the globe, and specially one of the federating units of Pakistan i.e the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa suffered a lot from the menace of terrorism.

Thousands of personnel of law enforcement agencies as well as civilians embraced martyrdom in the war of terror, besides the loss of economy in billions of dollars, the bench observed.

It added that many renowned political leaders were targeted and had embraced martyrdom in the suicide attacks.

Advocate Babar Khan Yousafzai and Barrister Sultan Mohammad Khan had represented the petitioner, whereas the assistant attorney general, Daulat Khan Mohmand, and the additional advocate general, Asad Jan Durrani, appeared for the federal and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government, respectively.