Executive Order

2013 CLD 1895 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 27(4)(i)(ii)(iii) & 41Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionBanking licence, cancellation ofExecutive orderRetrospective effect

Petitioner was a banking company and it was aggrieved of circular issued by State Bank of Pakistan cancelling banking licence of petitioner

Validity

State Bank of Pakistan was enjoying powers to cancel banking licence of any banking company, if banking company's case fell in the mischief of provision under S.27(4)(i)(ii)(iii) of Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962

No such situation was prevailing in the case of petitioner as provided under S.27(4)(i)(ii)(iii) of Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962

Petitioner had only applied for change of name that too after proper permission under the law, so action of authorities to cancel licence of petitioner was patently without any jurisdiction and was void ab initio

State Bank of Pakistan through circular in question introduced new terms in concluded and fully performed agreement with the purchasers of shares of petitioner bank, who were not sponsors of petitioner bank

Circular in question was beyond the powers conferred upon State Bank of Pakistan under S.41 of Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, as petitioner bank was an independent juristic entity and its shareholders were enjoying separate juristic status

Order of State Bank of Pakistan cancelling banking licence of petitioner and issuance of new banking licence was illegal and without lawful authority

High Court declared that original banking licence of petitioner would be deemed effective and circular in question was not applicable against shareholders of petitioner/Bank and that all circulars and orders of State Bank of Pakistan directing petitioner to comply with circular in question were without lawful authority and were of no legal effect

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

2012 CLC 764 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 117 & 122West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, R.67-BConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionDispossessionExecutive orderPetitioner was declared owner of land in question up to Supreme Court against respondent

Grievance of petitioner was that revenue authorities dispossessed him from his land through an executive order and handed over the same to respondent

Validity

Landowner could be evicted under Rule 67-B of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 read with sections 117 and 122 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, if the landowner was found in wrongful possession of a land as a result of demarcation proceedings taken under section 117 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Authorities hearing application under section 122 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, could direct fresh demarcation proceedings or order eviction of landowner who was in wrongful possession of the land

Such power of Collector was qualified by the proviso to Rule 67-B (5) of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, which provided that where proceedings involved substantial question of title or an intricate question of law, the Collector would refer the matter to civil court

Possession of land in question was ordered to be restored to petitioner forthwith and order passed by revenue authorities was set aside

High Court also set aside the notifications issued by Board of Revenue to the extent of private lands and private disputes, as having been issued without lawful authority

Petition was allowed accordingly.

2010 SCMR 1429 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 189 & 190Judgment of Supreme CourtScopeExecutive orderEffect

Judgment of Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Arts. 189 and 190 of the Constitution

Once matter has been finally adjudicated by Supreme Court then it is binding between the parties

Judgment of Supreme Court cannot be overridden or nullified by any executive order, rule or a dispensation short of legislative will.

2005 SCMR 492 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

RetrospectivityRequirement

Executive orders or notifications, which confer right and are beneficial, would be given retrospective effect and those which adversely affect or invade upon vested right cannot be applied with retrospective effect

Government of Pakistan, in the present case, had accorded permission to export with "no objection certificate" dated 2-3-2002 and for the first time on 9-1-2004, informed the exporter that Government had taken decision to export specified quantity of the commodity and that too through manufacturers of the commodity only

Said order of the Government having adversely affected the vested right of the exporter as such, it would not be appropriate to apply the same with retrospective effect.

2004 PLC(CS) 624 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Executive authorities have power to issue instructions or take policy decisions retrospectively, which are beneficial in nature.

2004 PLC(CS) 453 FEDERAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

No executive order could be passed with retrospective effect.

2001 YLR 1733 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Executive OrderExecutive order, value of

Executive order cannot possibly take place of legislative instrument, rules or notification issued thereunder imposing any levy upon the citizens.

1997 PTD 1555 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Executive OrderNotification

Executive Order/notification, which is detrimental or prejudicial to the interest of a person, cannot operate retrospectively

Beneficial Executive Order /notification, issued by an executive functionary can be given retrospective effect.

1997 PLD 582 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Notification

Executive Order/notification, which is detrimental or prejudicial to the interest of a person, cannot operate retrospectively

Beneficial Executive Order/notification, issued by an executive functionary can be given retrospective effect.