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 to suspend the notification and the decision of the Board of Directors regarding the appointment, alleging it violated previous directions of the Supreme Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an interim relief that 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 to decline the interim relief. The Court held that granting such relief would amount to a final assessment of the merits of the writ petition, which is contrary to the established legal principle that interim relief should not prejudge or dispose of the main matter. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds for interference, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal, affirming that courts should avoid deciding the merits of a case during the interlocutory stage.
- Should interim relief be granted if it effectively decides the final merits of the main petition?
- Is it appropriate for a court to suspend an appointment notification at the interlocutory stage if doing so resolves the main writ petition?
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ.---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 Ali Khan, respondent No 5, as Managing Director, NESPAK, alongwith 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 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.