Islamabad, Nov 3 (IANS): The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday directed the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) to ensure maintaining peace regardless of whatever the place they get permission to hold the sit-ins and rally.
The observation came during the hearing of PTI's plea against the government for not issuing the party a no-objection certificate for its sit-in in the capital city, Geo News reported.
As the PTI's long march continues its journey toward the federal capital, the party on October 31 filed a petition, seeking permission to conduct its jalsa and sit-in in addition to providing security to marchers.
On Wednesday, the IHC issued notices to the federal capital's administration for not issuing the PTI a no-objection certificate for its sit-in, directing them to appear before it today.
During the hearing, the court expressed annoyance as the relevant official of the Islamabad administration had not appeared despite summoning, Geo News reported.
"Is this a civil court? It is a high court," Justice Aamer Farooq said while summoning the officials of district administration in the court immediately.
Later, Islamabad Advocate General Barrister Jahangir Jadoon and Islamabad deputy commissioner appeared in the court.
Meanwhile, Jahangir read PTI chairman Imran Khan's response submitted in the Supreme Court regarding the party's long march of May 25, 2022.
Jadoon maintained that losses occurred in PTI's previous long march and police personnel were injured.
At the court's inquiry, the advocate general told that the PTI is seeking permission to hold the rally at the same spot they had asked to hold the rally in the previous march.
"They (PTI) have always violated the terms and conditions that's why we don't trust them. The PTI leadership refused to admit the assurance by two senior lawyers," Jadoon said, informing the court that PTI can hold the rally at T-chowk if they want, Geo News reported.
Meanwhile, PTI lawyer Babar Awan maintained that Ali Awan has filed this plea so he is responsible for it.
"The matter is already in the SC, we shouldn't argue on it," he said.