1998 PLP 605 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD USMAN GHANI KHATRI, CHAIRMAN, ITTEHAD CHEMICALS, LAHORE and another — Petitioners Versus PAKISTAN through Secretaries, Ministry of Interior Finance and Information and Communication, Islamabad and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 605 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD USMAN GHANI KHATRI, CHAIRMAN, ITTEHAD CHEMICALS, LAHORE and another — Petitioners Versus PAKISTAN through Secretaries, Ministry of Interior Finance and Information and Communication, Islamabad and 4 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 605 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 605 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 605 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD USMAN GHANI KHATRI, CHAIRMAN, ITTEHAD CHEMICALS, LAHORE and another — Petitioners Versus PAKISTAN through Secretaries, Ministry of Interior Finance and Information and Communication, Islamabad and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Lone and Azid Nafees for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Azam for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art: 199
Constitutional petition-- Auction-purchasers of Public Sector Unit
Petitioners who had purchased such unit were proceeded against on the ground that transaction in question was not transparent and that public exchequer was deprived of colossal amount due to underhand deal between functionaries of Government and petitioners-- Validity
No final action was yet initiated against petitioners either to recall agreement in question or to make any interference with working of impugned unit
Case had only been forwarded to Investigating Agency for inquiry and investigation into allegations against petitioners and irregularities committed during impugned auction proceedings of the unit
Investigation in such-like cases could not be stayed particularly when colossal loss to national exchequer was claimed through acclaimed underhand tactics
Ehtesab Cell would have legal power to inquire into such matters under Ehtesab Act, 1997, therefore, no interference at investigation stage would be called for in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court
Investigating agency should have free hand to make independent and impartial inquiry into alleged facts and counter- allegations so as to come to conclusion as to where would lie the fault, if any-- No case was made out for issuance of any order or direction for same would appear to be premature.
Judgment & Decree
ICL Employees Management Group Rs.79.00 per share (2) Ittehad Employees Group. Rs.78.00 -do (3) M/s Farooq Zaman Group. Rs.50.00 -do (4) Mr. Muhammad Saleem. Rs.40.00 -do (5) Mr. Tariq Saigal. Rs.28.00 -do-
6. As against -- the above quotations, the auction was postponed for no ostensible reason and the unit was re-auctioned on a subsequent date viz 30-6-1995 for an amount of Rs.20.10 per share, which resulted into a colossal loss to the national exchequer, as detailed above.
7. In view of the above facts, the Government have decided to make a reference to the Ehtesab Cell to find out the facts through an independent inquiry. Since all the actions of respondents were allegedly within the parameter of law, therefore, the writ petition was allegedly mis-conceived.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that no final action is yet initiated against the petitioners either to cancel the agreement or to make any interference with the working of the impugned unit. The comments offered by the respondents prima facie give a vivid story of the auction proceedings culminating into final disposal of Ittehad Chemical through a belated auction. The respondent No.2 has only forwarded the case to respondent No.3 for inquiry and investigation into the allegation against the petitioners and irregularities committed during the auction proceedings of the impugned unit. The investigation in such like cases cannot be stayed particularly when the colossal loss to the national exchequer is claimed through acclaimed underhand tactics. The Ehtesab Cell has legal power to inquire into such matters under the Ehtesab Act, 1997 and no interference at this stage would be called for in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. The investigating agency should have free hand to make independent and impartial inquiry into the aforementioned facts and counter-allegations in order to come to a conclusion as to where lies that fault, if any. Reference to 1994 SCMR 2142 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) will obviate the proposition.
9. In view of the above facts, no case is made out for issuance of writ as the plea claimed appears to be pre-mature. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the observation that investigation shall be conducted strictly in accordance with law by the relevant agency. A.A./M-533/L Petition dismissed.