MESSRS SUPER PUNJAB COAL Co. LTD. vs DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & MINERAL
This matter originated from a petition for special leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging an order of the Lahore High Court. The petitioner had sought a stay order in a pending constitutional petition (W. P. No. 4883/79), which the High Court had refused on November 19, 1979. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to grant an interim stay order in a pending writ petition warranted appellate interference. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the grant of a stay order in a pending case is a matter resting entirely within the judicial discretion of the court seized of the main matter. The Court affirmed that where a High Court, despite admitting a writ petition for regular hearing, determines that a stay order is not just or fit, such an exercise of discretion does not suffer from any legal infirmity justifying interference by the Supreme Court. The key principle laid down is that the grant of interim relief remains discretionary and appellate courts will not interfere with such refusal absent a clear legal error.
- Is the grant of a stay order in a pending case a matter of right or judicial discretion?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's refusal to grant an interim stay order in a pending constitutional petition?
ORDER
1. KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-A constitutional petition being W. P. No. 4883/79 is pending in the High Court. The petitioner in that case applied for issuance of a stay order, which was refused on 19-11- 1979. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court. It is well settled that grant of stay in a pending case is always in the discretion of the Court concerned. If in this case the High Court despite admitting the writ petition for regular hearing has not thought it just and fit to issue any stay order to the petitioner, its order cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
2. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.