Mrs. ZAIBA IQBAL vs CHAIRMAN, NAB and others
This petition arises from an order of the Sindh High Court, which directed the trial court to expeditiously decide the petitioner's applications filed under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's order remained effective and actionable given that the Supreme Court had subsequently stayed all proceedings before the trial court in a related matter. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order, having been passed by the consent of the parties, lost its efficacy and relevance following the stay order passed by the Supreme Court in C.P.L.A. No. 326 of 2005. The Court observed that since the trial court proceedings were stayed, no live issue remained for adjudication regarding the disposal of the petitioner's property. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on the grounds that it failed to raise any question of law of public importance, leaving the petitioner to seek alternative remedies before the appropriate legal forum if aggrieved.
- Does a consent order passed by a High Court lose its efficacy if a subsequent stay order is issued by the Supreme Court regarding the same proceedings?
- Can a petition be dismissed by the Supreme Court if no live issue remains for adjudication?
- Is a question of law of public importance required for the maintainability of a petition before the Supreme Court?
- Section 12, National Accountability Ordinance 1999
- Section 13, National Accountability Ordinance 1999
- Section 523, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 516-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner is aggrieved by order, dated 15-3-2007 whereby his constitutional petition has been disposed of by the Sindh High Court with the direction to the trial Court to decide his two applications one under sections 12 and 13 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 and another under sections 523 and 516-A, Cr.P.C. Read with section 12 of the NAB Ordinance expeditiously if proceedings before the trial Court are not stayed by this Court.
2. Mr. Jatoi states that this Court in C.P.L.A. No,326 of 2005 vide order, dated 27-3-2007 has stayed proceedings before the trial Court till the final disposal of the appeal arising out of the judgment, dated 25-4-2004 passed by the High Court.
3. It may be observed that the impugned order was passed by consent of the parties and, prima facie, it loses its efficacy in view of the order passed in the C.P.L.A. By a Bench of this Court, It is not the case of petitioner that the property of petitioner is being disposed of pending the hearing of her petition before this Court. Therefore, no live issue is left in the field for adjudication by this Court after the order of this Court, dated 27-3-2007. In case petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order it is open to her to seek her remedy before the proper forum of law.
4. In our considered opinion no question of law of public importance has been made out in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.