PESHAWAR: A Peshawar High Court bench on Wednesday directed the secretary of the Cabinet Division to file response within 15 days to a petition against the appointment of the director general and 11 deputy and assistant directors of the Intellectual Property Organisation of Pakistan (IPOP).

Chief Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel and Justice Malik Manzoor Hussain issued notices to other respondents including the IPOP DG, four DDs and seven ADs.

The petition is filed by Swabi resident Allauddin Khan through advocate Mukhtiar Khan Maneri challenging several other alleged irregularities in the IPOP.

The petitioner claimed that it was a pro bono case.

The respondents in the petition are the secretaryof the Cabinet Division; IPOP director general Engineer Aamir Hasan; DDs Chaudhry Asfand Ali, Nadia Zubair Shah, Mohammad Ismail and Syed Nasrullah (presently posted as deputy registrar Trademark Registry Karachi), and ADs Anjum Raza Bukhari, Humera Ihsan, Umme Salma, Aamir Latif, Humera Shakil, Hafiz Mohammad Abdullah and Kashif Latif Malik.

The petitioner said the federal government had appointed the director general, having no experience of Intellectual Property Rights, was appointe d by the federal government in violation of Section 12(1) of the IPOP, 2012.

He said the government could appoint the DG in consultation with the chairman only.

The petitioner said the office of the chairman of the organisation had fallen vacant on Apr 5, 2013, and had still been lying vacant.

He added that the government appointed the DG without consultation of the chairman and he assumed charge on Jan 20, 2014.

The petitioner claimed that despite the passage of the IPOP Act 2012 the relevant policy board, which was an important body, had yet not been constituted.He said under Section 6 of the Act, all the policies, administration, recruitments and budgetswere to be approved by the Policy Board, but surprisingly no such Policy Board was constituted under Section 4 of the Act.

The petitioner said under the law, two meetings of the Policy Board in a calendar year was mandatory.

He said the entire business of the organisation was carried out unlawfully as no rules or regulations were framed for the effective and transparent operation of the organisation.

The petitioner said the DG had also allowed illegalities under his administration as three patent examiners meant for examination of patent application in the Patent Office, Karachi had been transferred and posted as ADs despite the fact that redesignation of a particular post was a prerogative of the Establishment Division.

He said in the past, illegalities were also committed in the organisation as 11 DDs and ADs were appointed in 2009 prior to the date of interviews.

The petitioner prayed the court to declare `all acts, deeds, orders, circulars and notifications and all actions of the authorities of IPO Headquarters in absence of Policy Board` irregular and unconstitutional.