2013 PLP 1749 (SCMR)
DOSSANI TRAVELS PVT. LTD. and 4 others — Appellants/Petitioners Versus Messrs TRAVELS SHOP (PVT.) LTD. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 1749 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | DOSSANI TRAVELS PVT. LTD. and 4 others — Appellants/Petitioners Versus Messrs TRAVELS SHOP (PVT.) LTD. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan, (b) Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1749 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, (b) Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 1749 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1749 (SCMR) (DOSSANI TRAVELS PVT. LTD. and 4 others — Appellants/Petitioners Versus Messrs TRAVELS SHOP (PVT.) LTD. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Afzal A. Haider, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.800-L to 802-L of 2013).
- Muhammad Ikram Ch., Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.1148 and 1348 of 2013).
- A.K. Dogar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Azhar Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Qari Abdur Rasheed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th August, 2013.
- Waseem Majid Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants (in C.M.A. No.278-L of 2013).
- A.K. Dogar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants (in C.M.A. No.279-L of 2013).
- Saeed Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants (in C.M.A. No.285-L of 2013).
- Azhar Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants (in C.M.As. Nos.5328 to 5333 of 2013).
- Mir Adam Khan, Advocate-on-Record and Nek Nawaz Khan Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants (in C.M.A. No.5378 of 2013).
- Qari Abdur Rasheed, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants (in C.M.As. Nos.5515 to 5520 of 2013).
- Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for FBR.
- Muhammad Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Babar Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for CCP.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the orders dated 24-6-2013 and 9-7-2013 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.7253 of 2013 and judgment dated 15-7-2013 passed by Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in W.P. No.2939 of 2013.)
Art. 199
Hajj Policy, 2013
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
Trichotomy of powers, principle of
Selection of Hajj Group Organisers (HGOs)
High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction ordered selection of Hajj Group Organisers (HGOs) through a bidding process
Order of High Court was violative of the principle of trichotomy of powers, which was one of the foundational principles of the Constitution
High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction directed selection of Hajj Group Organizers through a bidding process and thereby substituted the criterion laid down in the Hajj Policy framed by the Ministry of Religious Affairs without hearing the Hajj Group Organizers/appellants and others who had already been allocated quota and had made arrangements for intending Hujjaj, which was not tenable in law
High Court could under Art.199 of the Constitution annul an order or a Policy framed by the Executive, if it was violative of the Constitution, law or was product of mala fides, however in the present case nothing had been placed before the court to indicate that the challenged Hajj Policy seriously suffered from any of the said infirmities
Supreme Court directed that Ministry of Religious Affairs shall continue to regulate the operation of Hajj i.e. enrollment, registration and allocation of quota every year in the light of a fair and transparent policy and the guidelines to be laid down by the Supreme Court in the detailed judgment
Appeals were allowed accordingly.
Art. 199
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
Policy making domain of the Executive
Interference in such domain was not the function of the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution
High Court could under Article 199 of the Constitution annul an order or a Policy framed by the Executive, if it was violative of the Constitution, law or was product of mala fides. Waseem Majid Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants (in C.M.A. No.278-L of 2013). A.K. Dogar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants (in C.M.A. No.279-L of 2013). Saeed Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants (in C.M.A. No.285-L of 2013). Azhar Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants (in C.M.As. Nos.5328 to 5333 of 2013). Mir Adam Khan, Advocate-on-Record and Nek Nawaz Khan Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants (in C.M.A. No.5378 of 2013). Qari Abdur Rasheed, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants (in C.M.As. Nos.5515 to 5520 of 2013). Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for FBR. Naveed Ihsan, Departmental Representative for SECP. Muhammad Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Babar Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for CCP. Saqib Jamal, Manager Legal for NADRA. Abdul Hayee Gillani, Additional Attorney-General, Dil Muhammad Alizai, DAG, Jahanzeb Wahla, Standing Counsel, Shahzad Ahmed, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Farid Khattak, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs on Court's Call.
Judgment & Decree
For reasons to be recorded later in the detailed judgment, Civil Appeals Nos. 800-L to 802-L/2013 are allowed, Civil Petitions Nos.1148 and 1348 of 2013 are converted into appeals and allowed and C.M.As. Nos.278-L, 279-L/2013, 285-L/2013, 289- L/2013, 5328 to 5333/2013, 5378/2013, 5463/2013, 5464/2013 and 5477/2013 are disposed of and we hold and declare as under:-- (i) that the order of the learned High Court dated 24-6-2013 passed in Writ Petition No.7253 of 2013 is violative of the principle of trichotomy of powers, which is one of the foundational principles of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan; (ii) that it is not the function of the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to interfere, in the Policy Making Domain of the Executive; (iii) that the learned High Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction directed selection of Hajj Group Organizers through bidding process and thereby substituted the criterion laid down in the Hajj Policy framed by the Ministry of Religious Affairs without hearing the appellants/Hajj Group Organizers and others who had already been allocated quota and had made arrangements for intending Hujjaj, which is not tenable in law; (iv) that the High Court can under Article 199 of the Constitution annul an order or a Policy framed by the Executive, if it is violative of the Constitution, law or is product of mala fides. However, nothing has been placed before this Court to indicate that the Hajj Policy challenged before this Court seriously suffered from any of these infirmities; and (v) that Ministry of Religious Affairs shall continue to regulate the operation of Hajj i.e. enrollment, registration and allocation of quota every year in the light of a fair and transparent policy and the guidelines to be laid down by this Court in the detailed judgment. MWA/D-12/SC Appeal allowed.