Pakistan( National Times)- The Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) on Saturday categorically rejected the media reports claiming that the Maulana Fazlur Rehman-led party decided to meet incarcerated Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder in Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail. Reports were circulating on section of electronic and social media that the JUI-F leadership, following the backdoor contacts, would meet the jailed PTI founder. The reports claimed that JUI-F Senator Kamran Murtaza, after receiving the court’s nod, would meet Khan in the Rawalpindi jail. During the meeting, the two opposition parties would discuss a strategy to give a tough time to the Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif-led federal government, the reports added. However, a spokesperson for the JUI-termed the media reports as “rumours” saying Senator Murtaza was not given any special task in this regard. The JUI-F, however, said: “There should be a fair trial in cases filed against the PTI founder.”     “We are and will remain in contact with the PTI as an opposition party.” Meetings and consultations with the PTI leadership on various issues would continue, the spokesperson added.  Last week, reports emerged about a political alliance between the two parties against the coalition government. Commenting on the speculated alliance, JUI-F leader Murtaza had clarified that any decision on joining hands with the former ruling party for protests remained “premature”. “There is no final decision on protesting alongside the PTI at this stage,” he had added. Murtaza also disclosed that the PTI leaders recently sent a goodwill message from the party’s founder Imran Khan, intended for the JUI-F chief. He had elaborated that the message included “well wishes” for the JUI-F chief, adding that the message was intended to clarify that accusations of betrayal related to the amendment were “not directed at Maulana”. Days after helping the coalition government pass the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman had said that if his party had not voted for the amendment, “a very dirty draft” would have been approved.