ABDUL MALIK vs HABIB BANK LTD. through President, Habib Bank, Karachi
This constitutional petition was filed by a former employee of Habib Bank Limited challenging his dismissal from service dated 25-1-2007. The petitioner sought a declaration that the dismissal order was illegal and requested reinstatement with back-benefits. The core legal question before the Balochistan High Court was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a privatized entity like Habib Bank Limited, specifically regarding whether it performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province. The Court held that following the privatization of Habib Bank Limited, the bank is operated by a private party and no longer performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province. Consequently, the Court determined that the essential condition precedent for invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was not satisfied. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable without addressing the merits of the dismissal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked against private entities that lack a nexus with governmental or state functions.
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a privatized bank that no longer performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province?
- What is the condition precedent for the maintainability of a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding the nature of the respondent's functions?
- Does the privatization of a formerly state-owned bank divest the High Court of jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition against its employment decisions?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
AKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, J.--- Following relief has been claimed in the instant constitutional petition:- "It is, therefore, accordingly respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to declare the dismissal order, dated 25-1-2007 as illegal, unlawful, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Further the respondent may be directed to reinstate the petitioner into services with all back-benefits, in the interest of justice."
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner was an employee of Habib Bank Limited, who was served with a show-cause notice as to why disciplinary action for alleged misconduct 'should not be taken against him, which was replied by the petitioner denying the allegations. It appears from the record that after conducting inquiry through Inquiry Committee, a second show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the basis of inquiry report and after receipt of reply and personal hearing, the petitioner was dismissed from services vide order, dated 25th January, 2007, hence this petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the respondents raised objection about maintainability of the petition, as according to him, Habib Bank Limited after privatization has no concern with the affairs of Federation or a Province, which is condition precedent for maintainability of constitutional petition, as such; the petition was liable to be dismissed on such short ground.
4. In reply to such objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the bank was established under statute of Federation and petitioner was regular employee of bank, as such; petition was maintainable.
5. We have carefully considered the contentions put forth by the parties' learned counsel. It may be observed that under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, this Court if satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law, on the application of an aggrieved person, A can make an order directing a person performing within territorial jurisdiction of the Court functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a Local Authority to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do so or to do anything he is required by law to do so or declare that any act done or proceeding taken by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a Local Authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. It is not disputed that after privatization of Habib Bank Limited, it is being run by a private party and bank has no concern with the affairs of Federation or a Province, which is condition precedent qua maintainability of constitutional petition. In this regard we are fortified by the judgments reported in PLD 1966 SC 445 and 2005 M LD 1798.
In view of what has been discussed above, without going into merits of the case, in our considered view, the instant petition is not maintainable, which is dismissed accordingly.
Cited by 12 cases
- United Bank Limited vs Muhammad Usman Arshad and another 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1111
- MUHAMMAD JAVED KHAN Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED 2020 PLC(CS)N 4
- Noor Badshah through L.Rs vs United Bank Limited through its President & 2019 PLC (C.S) 1433, 2019 LHC 587
- NOOR BADSHAH Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED 2019 PLC(CS) 1433
- NOOR BADSHAH vs UNITED BANK LIMITED through President and 3 others 2015 PLC (C.S.) 468
- KESC and others vs N.I.R.O and others 2014 PLD Sindh 553
- KESC and others vs N.I.R.C. and others 2015 NLR Labour 114, 2015 PLC 1
- AL-GHAZI TRACTOR LIMITED through Chief Executive and another vs MUHAMMAD HANIF IQBAL and 2 others 2014 CLD 937
- AL-GHAZI TRACTOR LTD. through Chief Executive and another vs MUHAMMAD HANIF IQBAL and 2 others 2014 PLD Lahore 635
- SAKHAWAT and 4 others vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry f Law and Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and 3 others 2015 PLC (C.S.) 385
- NASIRUDDIN GHORI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 4 2010 PLC 323
- KESC AND OTHERS vs N.I.R.C. AND OTHERSs 2015 NLR Labour 114