AMANULLAH AND Others vs RAIS MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND Other
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the Lahore High Court, which had maintained a status quo regarding the construction of an open-air cinema in Sadiqabad, District Rahim Yar Khan. The respondents had initially challenged the legality of a No-Objection Certificate granted to the appellants for the cinema's construction through a Constitutional Petition. However, by the time the petition was filed, the construction was already complete. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court had applied correct legal principles in granting the status quo order, particularly given the completed state of the construction. Upon review, and noting that the respondents did not appear to contest the appeal and the Assistant Advocate-General for the Punjab government also declined to contest it, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The Court noted that the cinema had been operational since 1974. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, effectively resolving the dispute in favor of the appellants without an order as to costs.
- Whether a status quo order is appropriate when the construction project in dispute is already completed?
- Can an appellate court set aside a status quo order if the respondents fail to contest the appeal?
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C.J.-The dispute in this appeal relates to the order of the Lahore High Court dated 27th of September, 1971, confirming status quo earlier granted.
2. Respondents 1 to 4 filed Constitutional Petition No. 346/BWP of 1971 wherein they impugned the legality of the No-Objection Certificate dated 25th of November, 1970, granted to the appellants, for the construction of an open air cinema at Sadiqabad, District Rahim Yar Khan. However, when this constitutional petition was filed, the construction of this open air cinema had been completed which fact was evident even from the parawise comments of the District Magistrate The appellants, thereupon, invoked the. Jurisdiction of this Court through a petition and leave was granted to consider as to whether the order maintaining status quo was granted on correct principles. Further, the order of the High Court w vacated "on the clear understanding that any further construction of the cinema as made by the petitioners, will be at their own risk".
3. Respondents 1 to 4 have not appeared today before the Court to oppose the appeal while the Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, on behalf of respondents 5 and 6, has stated that he would not also contest it. Inn mullah, one of the appellants, who was present in Court, has stated that the open air cinema is functioning since 1974. As there is no contest, We would allow the appeal bat with no order as to costs. 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.