HABIB BANK Ltd. And Others vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
This appeal arose from an order of the Peshawar High Court which had vacated an earlier status quo order while directing that the main writ petition be heard within one month. The Supreme Court of Pakistan had previously granted leave to appeal, noting that the requirements for interim relief appeared to be met and that the vacation of the status quo order required reconsideration. Upon hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed that its previous directions for an early hearing and the High Court's own direction to decide the matter within one month had not been complied with, partly due to the records being requisitioned by the Supreme Court office. With the consent of the respondents, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order vacating the status quo. The Court held that the status quo must be maintained during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court and reaffirmed the direction that the main writ petition be decided within one month, with the period commencing upon the return of the records to the High Court.
- Can the Supreme Court restore a status quo order during the pendency of a writ petition in the High Court by consent of the parties?
- Does the requisitioning of records by the Supreme Court office justify a delay in the High Court's compliance with an order to decide a case within a fixed timeframe?
- Is a direction for the expeditious disposal of a writ petition within a specific timeframe enforceable upon the return of case records to the High Court?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH,J.-- This appeal, by leave of this Court, directed against an order; dated 16th February, 1981 passed by the Peshawar High Court whereby an earlier order dated 12-1-1981 passed by it directing maintenance of status quo during the pendency of the writ petition was vacated but the main writ petition was ordered to be' fixed for hearing "positively within one month from this date."
2. This Court while granting leave on 24th 'February, 1981 noted that all the requirements necessary for issuance of interim relief appeared to exist in the case and the correctness of the order vacating earlier order of status quo required consideration.
3. It was also directed that the appeal shall early date on the existing record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents.
4. Interim stay was also granted but it was observed "that the High Court will proceed to hear the main petition in accordance with the direction contained in the impugned order" of the High Court, dated 16-2-1983.
5. When the appeal came up for hearing today we discovered that neither of these two directions had been complied with. The appeal has come up after more than four years, instead of at an early date and the High Court has not disposed of the matter in accordance with its own directions contained in its order, dated 16-2-1.981 that it will be heard within one month 'positively'.
6. It appears that the office called for the records of the case from the High Court contrary to the directions contained in the leave granting order, which has prevented the High Court from proceeding further in the matter.
7. Be that as it may the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has not now opposed the prayer of the appellants that the status quo may continue during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court but prayed that the said writ petition might be hear within one month from today as originally directed by the High Court itself.
8. This appeal is allowed by consent. The order, dated 16-2-1981 is set aside to the extent that the status quo will be maintained during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court but the remaining part of the order, dated 16-2-1981 that the writ petition shall be fixed 'positively' within one month is maintained.
9. In the light of the altered circumstances, the aforementioned period of one month shall start from the date of the records are received back in the Peshawar High Court from this Court.
10. This appeal is allowed in the above terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.