IHC to frame contempt charges against CDA member estate

The Islamabad High Court has decided to frame contempt of court charges against Capital Development Authority Member Estate Mohammad Zaman Wattoo after rejecting his request for an unconditional apology. The court directed him to appear personally on November 12, when formal charges are scheduled to be framed.

Chief Justice Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar heard the contempt proceedings, which concern an alleged misrepresentation of facts and conduct during earlier court proceedings. The court also directed the prosecutor to prepare for the next hearing.

The case is linked to a dispute over the allotment of plots to affected people. In the earlier proceedings, the court had directed the CDA official to appear in person, but the official did not attend the hearing before the chief justice.

According to the court proceedings, Wattoo had cited illness as the reason for his absence. The court noted that he subsequently appeared before another court on the same day, raising questions about the explanation given for not attending the chief justice’s court.

Wattoo’s counsel sought acceptance of an unconditional apology, while the official also personally apologised and said he held the judiciary in high regard. The chief justice said the apology could be considered later but held that the matter should proceed through the contempt process.

The court expressed displeasure over what it described as a failure to treat the dignity and authority of the court with due seriousness. It observed that an official summoned personally should remain available until the matter is taken up or seek additional time from the court.

The CDA maintained that Wattoo had been attending proceedings before another judge in a separate case involving the CDA chairman and that the hearing continued until after the chief justice’s court had concluded. He disputed the claim that he had authorised anyone to tell the court he was unwell.

The next hearing is set for November 12. The court has made clear that it intends to proceed with the framing of charges, while the official’s explanation and the issue of his apology may be considered during the legal process.