ASAD I. A. KHAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Islamabad High Court, which had partly allowed a writ petition concerning the appointment of the Managing Director of NESPAK. The petitioner sought interim relief to suspend the notification of appointment pending the final adjudication of the writ petition. The core legal question was whether interim relief, which effectively grants the final relief sought in the main petition, should be granted at the interlocutory stage. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming the principle that where the relief sought at an interim stage would lead to a final assessment or decision of the main petition, such relief should not be granted. The Court held that the High Court correctly refused to grant the interim suspension because doing so would have effectively decided the merits of the pending writ petition prematurely. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Should interim relief be granted if it effectively decides the final merits of a pending writ petition?
- Is it appropriate for a court to grant an interim suspension of an appointment notification when the main petition challenges the validity of that appointment?
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order dated 6-9-2013 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner has been partly allowed.
2. It is to be noted that the petitioner instituted a writ petition challenging the appointment of Amjad Ali Khan, respondent No.5, as Managing Director, NESPAK, along with the application for interim relief with the following prayer:- "It is respectfully prayed that the operation of the impugned notification of 15-8-2013 by the Company Secretary, NESPAK and decision dated 15-8-2013 of the Board of Directors, NESPAK may be suspended till the decision of the writ petition."
3. The learned High Court while examining the case of the petitioner and relying upon the principle that "the relief when sought is leading towards a final assessment, such relief should not be granted at B this stage", the approach of the learned High Court was correct.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the respondent No.5 has been appointed as Managing Director, NESPAK vide notification dated 15-8-2013, in violation of directions of this Court dated 10-7-2013, therefore, interference is called for.
5. We are not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner, because adjudication on merits, as has been stressed by learned High Court, would necessarily lead to decision of the writ petition pending before it finally, which is not the object of the law, in view of the principle noted hereinabove.
6. Therefore, under the circumstances, no interference in the impugned order is called for. Thus for the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- Muhammad Aslam vs Federation of Pakistan & others 2021 SHC 1352
- Dr. TAHIR MASUD vs AMJAD ALI KHAN and 4 others 2019 PLC (C.S.) 1167
- Ishrat Ali Lohar vs Federation of Pakistan and Others 2019 PLD Sindh 47, 2018 SHC 644