The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered authorities to place the names of all former managing directors of the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) who have served the national flag carrier during the last 10 years on the Exit Control List.
Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar passed the order while hearing a case pertaining to a suo motu notice against sales of national assets on lower prices.
The CJP-led three-member bench directed the counsel for the airline to submit a report on the deficit suffered by PIA during the last nine years. The court also directed PIA’s lawyer to separately state the deficit of each year and highlight who the managing director of the airline was during that year.
“Those who have ruined this national asset are oppressors, enemies and traitors,” the chief justice remarked.
The court also ordered submission of a list of all chairmen, advisors, and managing directors of PIA.
“One of the PIA’s former managing director, who is a German citizen, is on the run,” the lawyer informed the court. He disclosed that the national flag-carrier has suffered a loss of Rs260.39 billion during the last 17 years.
“The government of Pakistan owns 96 per cent stakes in the airline. Since April 2016, PIA has been functioning as a public limited company. It is being run as per a corporate model,” he added.
He said that the board of governors of the company consists of 11 members, a majority of whom are appointed by the government.
“Aviation secretary is the chairman and member of the board. Irfan Illahi is the elected member of the board and secretary E&D is also a member of the board,” he said.
The lawyer said that other airlines had taken advantage of reduced petroleum prices but PIA failed to do the same.
The apex court also directed the federal government to submit a reply on the issue. “Does the federal government intend to privatise the airline,” the chief justice asked and directed the attorney general to appear before the bench.
Later, the court dismissed a petition against the PIA administration. The petitioner had contended that only influential candidates were provided opportunities for internships in the airline. The court rejected the petition while citing the absence of any law on internships.