MLD 2024

2024 PLP 1871 (MLD)

Sardar Naveed Haider Khan — Petitioner Versus Federation of Pakistan and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2024-September-19
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2024 PLP 1871 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties Sardar Naveed Haider Khan — Petitioner Versus Federation of Pakistan and others — Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2024 PLP 1871 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2024 PLP 1871 (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: 2024 PLP 1871 (MLD) (Sardar Naveed Haider Khan — Petitioner Versus Federation of Pakistan and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan

Representation

  • Ali Ibrahim and Ali Akram for Respondent on watching brief.

Headnotes / Summary

Art. 199(1)(a)

Pakistan Football Federation Constitution, 2014, Arts. 3(2) & 6

Order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of Pakistan Football Federation, assailing of

Constitutional petition

Maintainability

Held, that Pakistan Football Federation (PFF) was an independent body and the Federal Government did not exercise any control over its affairs

In terms of Art. 199(1)(a) of the Constitution, a High Court, on a petition filed by an aggrieved person, can issue a writ to a person who is performing functions in connection with he affairs of Federation, Province or local authority

Therefore, material consideration is that the person against whom such a writ is to be issued should be the one who is performing functions in connection with the affairs of Federation or a Province or a local authority

It is not sufficient that such a body is within the regulatory control of the State, instead the paramount considerations are dominant control and significant financial interest of the State in the affairs of such a body

PFF is a private body and its affairs are run in accordance with a constitution and, inter alia, bound by the decisions and regulations of FIFA which is an international body for the game of football and has nothing to do with the affairs of the Federation of Pakistan

Provisions of PFF Constitution clearly show that PFF is an independent body and the Federal Government does not exercise control over its affairs

Constitutional petition, being not maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

Shams Mehmood Mirza, J.

This writ petition calls into question order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of Pakistan Football Federation.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this writ petition. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision rendered by learned Islamabad High Court in Writ Petition No.700 of 2024 titled Syed Liaqat Hussain Bukhari and others v. Pakistan Football Federation and others. The learned Islamabad High Court by placing reliance on the case of Pakistan Olympic Association v. Nadeem Aftab Sindhu 2019 MR 221 concluded that Pakistan Football Federation is an independent body and that the Federal Government does not exercise any control on its affairs. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

6. In terms of Article 199(1)(a) of the Constitution, a High Court, on a petition filed by an aggrieved person, can issue a writ to a person who is performing functions in connection with the affairs of Federation, a Province or local authority. The material consideration therefore, is that the person against whom such a writ is to be issued should be the one who is performing functions in connection with the affairs of Federation or a province or a local authority. Now since the advent of function test in the case of Frontier Sugar Mills in order for a body to become amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199(1)(a), it is not sufficient that such a body is within the regulatory control of the State, instead the paramount considerations are dominant control and significant financial interest of the State in the affairs of such a body. PFF is a private body and its affairs are run in accordance with a constitution that has been framed by its congress which compromises of its general assembly of members. PFF is further bound by the decisions and regulations of FIFA which is an international body for the game of football and has nothing to do with the affairs of the Federation of Pakistan. Article 3 of the PFF Constitution shows that besides FIFA, Asian Football Confederation and Pakistan Olympic Association, PFF are also affiliated with PSB. However sub-Article (2) of the Article 3 in the PFF Constitution provides that REF has to fully comply with decisions of FIFA at all times. It has further been explained in Article 6 that the objective of PFF is inter alia to preserve independence of the Federation in all matters without outside influence and interference. These provisions of PFF Constitution clearly show that PFF is an independent body and the Federal Government does not exercise control over its affairs.

7. An affiliation with PSB would not ipso facto bring PFF under the control of Federal Government. Additionally, an occasional issuance of grant to PFF by PSB would not be equivalent of an overwhelming financial interest of the State in PFF.

3. This Court after having perused the aforementioned judgment is in respectful agreement with the findings contained therein regarding the maintainability of writ petition against Pakistan Football Federation. This writ petition being not maintainable is accordingly dismissed. MQ/N-20/L Petition dismissed.