HABIB BANK LTD . vs RAMAN ALI HEMANI and another
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court. The core legal question raised is whether Habib Bank Limited, having been privatized and its control transferred to a private entity pursuant to a notification dated 26-2-2004, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 in a service dues matter filed in 2008. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether a privatized bank remains subject to writ jurisdiction and suspended the operation of the impugned judgment pending the final hearing. The court established that the maintainability of a constitutional petition against a privatized banking institution requires examination of its instrumentality status post-privatization.
- Whether a privatized banking company is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the transfer of control of a bank to a private entity exempt it from constitutional petitions relating to employee service dues?
- What is the effect of privatization on the status of a statutory or state-owned bank regarding public law remedies?
- Article 199, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
GHULAM RABBANI, J.---It is submitted that pursuant to notification dated 26-2-2004, the petitioner/Bank was privatized and the control of the petitioner/Bank was transferred to a private entity. The Constitutional Petition by respondent No, 1 was filed on or about 25-11-2008, seeking the payment of service dues, to which the respondent No, 1 was not entitled.
2. It is contended that since the petitioner/Bank was already privatized as back as in the year 2004 thus it was not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court as contemplated under Article 199 of the A Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and that the Constitutional Petition against the petitioner was not maintainable.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are persuaded to grant leave to consider the above point of law. The matter to be decided on the available record, however, the parties shall be at liberty to file additional documents within one month.
4. Subject to notice to the respondents, the operation of the impugned judgment shall remain suspended till next date of hearing.