KARACHI WATCH vs IMRAN FASIHI and another
This matter concerns the authority of the Karachi Building Control Authority (KBCA) to regularize unauthorized construction following the expiry of the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question addressed was whether an application for regularization, filed while the Ordinance was in force, survives the expiry of the enactment. The Court held that the right to have such an application decided persists despite the subsequent expiry of the Ordinance. Relying on Article 264 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897, the Court affirmed the principle that rights, privileges, obligations, or liabilities acquired or incurred under a repealed or expired enactment survive the repeal or expiry. Consequently, the Court directed the KBCA to decide the respondent's pending regularization application in accordance with the law within one month. This judgment establishes that the expiry of a statute does not extinguish vested rights or procedural entitlements, such as the right to have a pending application processed, which were initiated during the statute's operational life.
- Does the expiry of a statute extinguish the right to have a regularization application decided if the application was filed while the statute was in force?
- Does Article 264 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 preserve rights and obligations acquired under an expired enactment?
- Is the Karachi Building Control Authority required to process regularization applications filed during the life of the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance 1979 after said Ordinance has expired?
- Article 264, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 6, General Clauses Act 1897
- Section 1(3), Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. Mr. Muhammad Saleem Samo, learned Amicus Curiae, has pointed out that the petition has been kept pending only to decide the issue whether after the expiry of the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979, K.B.C.A. Could still regularize unauthorized construction etc., as in the present matter.
2. In this regard Mr. Saleem Samo has submitted that the above mentioned Ordinance was promulgated on 19-3-2002 and expired on 18-3-2003 as per section 1(3) thereof. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 had applied for regularization of the building in question on 31-5-2002 during the life of the Ordinance. Consequently, per Article 264 of the Constitution which is synonymous with section 6 of the General Clauses Act, inter alia, any right/privilege/obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any repealed enactment would servive. Hence, per learned amicus curiae the right of the respondent No.1 to have at least his application for regularization decided by KBCA in accordance with the then existing law would survive. In support of his submission, he has relied upon Jannat-ul-Haq v. Abbas Khan 2001 SCM R 1073.
3. All the other learned counsel concur with the submission made by the learned amicus curiae.
4. We have heard the learned amicus curiae and in our opinion he has cited the law correctly as enshrined in Article 264 of the Constitution and section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which provide inter alia, any right/privilege/obligation or liability acquired or incurred under a repealed enactment would survive notwithstanding the repeal. Admittedly, the Ordinance in question was promulgated on 19-3-2002 and expired on 18-3-2003 whereas the respondent No.1 applied for regularization on 31-5-2002. Consequently, we would dispose of this petition and direct the K.B.C.A.
5. To decide the respondent No.1's regularization application in accordance with law within one month from today and report compliance thereafter.