INTERNATIONAL GUARANTEE TRUST COMPANY LTD Versus ABIDA HUSSAIN
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order passed by the learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, whereby the petitioner company's requests for the urgent hearing of a pending Constitution Petition during court vacations, by a larger Bench, and at the principal seat of the High Court were rejected. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court can interfere with the internal administrative decisions of the High Court regarding the constitution of benches, fixing of cases during vacations, and determination of hearing venues. The Supreme Court held that requests concerning the hearing of cases during vacations, constitution of larger benches, and venue of hearings are entirely administrative in nature and devoid of judicial content, and the High Court Chief Justice's discretion in such matters cannot be interfered with. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not sit in judgment over administrative decisions taken by the Chief Justice of a High Court regarding case management and bench constitution, though parties may approach the High Court administratively if urgency requires.
- Are requests for hearing a matter during vacations, before a larger bench, and at the principal seat of the High Court judicial or administrative in nature?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the refusal of a High Court Chief Justice to hear a case during vacations or constitute a larger bench?
- Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑ ‑The petitioner, a company registered abroad, seeks leave to appeal against an order dated 14‑7‑1990 passed by the learned Chief Justice, Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the request of the petitioner for hearing of a Constitution Petition during vacations and by a larger Bench at the principal seat of the Lahore High Court, was rejected.
2. The petitioner claims to be at an advanced stage of establishing a recreational facility and a Hotel Complex in Islamabad for which the Capital Development Authority had made necessary commitments and the petitioner had in furtherance of it taken certain irrevocable steps and had incurred financial obligations of a very onerous nature. It was at such a stage when a Constitution Petition (W.P. No.432/90) was instituted in the Lahore High Court by way of public interest litigation challenging the action taken or proposed to be taken by the Capital Development Authority and the induction of the petitioner into the area. It is not necessary to mention the various reasons given for challenging the involvement of the Capital Development Authority and of the petitioner in the proposed enterprise. However, on the request of the writ petitioner, a status quo order was passed on 5‑6‑1990.
3. Two applications, one under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C. and the other under section 151, C.P.C. were moved before the High Court. In the second application under section 151, C.P.C. the prayers made were; that the case be transferred to Lahore/Principal seat, that it be taken up forthwith for hearing and the hearing continued day to day during the vacations, if necessary and that a larger Bench be constituted to dispose of the matter. By the impugned order, it is the second application claiming the three reliefs, reproduced; above, which has been disposed of and none of the prayers has been accepted.:
4. Mr. Raza Kazim, Advocate, the learned counsel of the petitioner has taken us through the history of the case, the deep financial involvement of the petitioner and seeks leave to appeal with a view to get the reliefs which he was seeking. In addition he has stated that there is no indication that even after the vacations, the matter would be taken up at all.
5. As has been admitted by the learned counsel himself the requests made, namely, of hearing of the matter during vacations, its hearing by a larger Bench, its hearing at the principal seat of the High Court, were all administrative in nature having no judicial content as such. The learned Chief Justice in dealing with such a matter has been guided by his own constraints and this Court cannot sit on judgment with regard to it. However, if the petitioner feels that the matter is not being dealt with, with the urgency which it demands, after the vacations, he may move the High Court on the administrative side.
6. There is no merit in this petition and the leave to appeal is refused.
H.B.T./I‑135/S Leave refused.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL RAHEEM ZUBAIR BUTT vs AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT 2003 PLC (C.S.) 664