ALI MUHAMMAD AZIZ Versus BEGUM NUSRAT BHUTTO, SENIOR FEDERAL MINISTER

AJMAL MIAN, CJ.‑‑ The petitioner by this petition has prayed for the following reliefs:‑

"22. This Honourable Court may be pleased with exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to:

(i) declare that appointments of Respondents Nos. 3 to 14 made by Respondents Nos.l and 2 are without lawful authority

(ii) direct the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to remove the Respondents Nos.3 to 14 from offices claimed by them.

(iii) Respondents Nos.3 to 14 may be asked to show as to under what authority of law they are holding public offices claimed by them."

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner, who claims to be the President of Pakistan Peoples League, has impugned the appointment of Respondent No.3 as the Senior Federal Minister and of Respondents Nos.4 to 14 as the State Ministers for the port‑folios mentioned against their respective names on the ground that there is no provision in the Constitution for appointment of a Senior Minister and that Respondents Nos.4 to 14 have been appointed as the State Ministers in respect of the port folios which ‑are on the Provincial Legislative List. He has prayed for the above reliefs.

3. In support of the above petition the petitioner has contended that previously there was provision in the Constitution providing a Senior Minister; but the same provision has been omitted, and therefore, it is to be inferred that the Constitution does not contemplate appointment of a Senior Minister. The above contention is devoid of any force. Since there is no prohibition in the Constitution to the effect that the senior‑most Minister in the Cabinet cannot be called as the Senior Minister, no exception can be taken on the ground urged by the petitioner.

4. As regards his submission that. Respondents Nos.4 to 14 have been appointed State Ministers and have been given port‑folios on the subjects which fall within the competency of the Provincial Legislature, it may be observed that he has referred to clause (c) of Article 142 of the Constitution which provides that "a Provincial Assembly shall, and Majlis‑e‑Shoora (Parliament) shall not, 1 have power to make laws with respect to any matter not enumerated in either the Federal Legislative List or the Concurrent Legislative List." On the basis of the above clause in Article 142, he has submitted that since the port‑folios assigned to respondents Nos.4 to 14 are not covered by the subjects mentioned in the Federal Legislative List and the Concurrent Legislative List, their appointments are illegal and amount to infringement of Provincial autonomy. The above contention is misconceived inasmuch as the appointments of the above Respondents Nos.4 to 14 as the Ministers of State for the port‑folios mentioned against them do not constitute Legislation on the subject exclusively meant for the Provincial Legislature. In our view to act as a Minister for a particular subject is different from the act to legislate on that subject. Even otherwise the port‑folios which have been allocated to Respondents Nos.4 to 14 are covered by the Federal Legislative List and or by the Concurrent Legislative List or by residuary items mentioned in both the lists. The petition has, therefore, no merits. It is, therefore, dismissed in limine. These are the reasons in pursuance of short order of even date.

MA.K./A‑670/K Petition dismissed.