Attiq Ur Rehman vs Sh. Tahir Mehmood and others
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition seeking leave to appeal against an interim order passed by the High Court in a constitutional petition. Respondent No. 1 had approached the High Court challenging the initiation of an inquiry by the Chief Minister's Inspection Team on charges from which he had previously been exonerated across three separate inquiries, arguing lack of lawful authority. The High Court had issued notices and granted interim relief directing that no adverse orders be passed against him. The Supreme Court considered whether it should interfere with the High Court's discretionary interim order. Reaffirming established jurisprudence against piecemeal adjudication, the Supreme Court held that it is the settled policy not to readily interfere with interim orders unless they are arbitrary, unreasonable, reflect abuse of power, or constitute a wanton exercise of discretion resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Finding no grave illegality, abuse of process, or gross injustice in the impugned interim order, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court?
- Whether piecemeal adjudication of cases before the High Court is discouraged by the Supreme Court?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere in an interim order where there is no grave illegality, abuse of process, or gross injustice?
ORDER
SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J. Respondent No.1 through a constitutional petition challenged the initiation of inquiry against him on the charges of which he already stood exonerated in three previous inquiries. He contended before the High Court that the Chief Minister's Inspection Team has no authority to initiate the said inquiry against him. On the basis of these submissions the High Court issued notices to other side and granted interim relief to respondent No.1 on 03.1.2020 to the effect that no adverse orders be passed against him. The said interim relief was further extended vide order dated 04.2.2020.
2. It is the settled policy of this Court not to readily interfere in the interim orders passed by the High Court. It is desirable that the court hearing the case finally decides the same before it is brought before this court as piecemeal adjudication is not desirable. The only exception is when the interim relief granted by the High Court is arbitrary or unreasonable or reflects abuse of power or wanton exercise of discretion resulting in miscarriage of justice[1]. We have examined the impugned interim order and find that it does not suffer from any grave illegality or abuse of process or gross injustice. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed and leave refused.
1. Muhammad Sadiq v. Bashir Ahmad, PLD 1966 SC 717; Multan Development Authority v.
Muhammad Ramzan, PLD 1989 SC 629; Salah-Ud-Din v. Mst. Zia Farhat, 1996 SCMR 1528; Federation of Pakistan v. Shafiq ul Hassan, 2020 SCMR 2119.
Cited by 2 cases
- ARSHAD AZIZ ABBASI Versus The SPECIAL JUDGE, CUSTOMS, TAXATION AND ANTI-SMUGGLING-I, KARACHI 2026 SCMR 775
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, Large Taxpayers Office, Islamabad (In all 2024 SCP 104, 2024 SCMR 853, 2024 PTD 1085