LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs BARKAT ALI and others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Lahore Municipal Corporation against an interim order passed by an Intra-Court Appeal Bench of the Lahore High Court. The High Court had admitted an appeal filed by the respondents and issued an interim order directing the petitioner not to disturb the respondents, who were maintaining milch cattle within the municipal boundaries. The petitioner contended that the presence of these cattle caused public nuisance, accidents, and hindered urban development, noting that the respondents had already been provided with alternative arrangements. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the discretionary interim order passed by the High Court pending the final disposal of the Intra-Court Appeal. The Supreme Court held that it would refrain from interfering with the discretionary interim orders of the High Court, consistent with its established practice of minimal interference in such matters. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, with a direction to the High Court to expedite the final disposal of the pending Intra-Court Appeal.
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with discretionary interim orders passed by the High Court pending final adjudication?
- Does the Supreme Court have a practice of minimal interference regarding discretionary interim orders of the High Court?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal, by the Lahore Municipal Corporation, is directed against an interim order passed by the Intra-Court Appeal Bench of the Lahore High Court; whereby, while admitting an Intra-Court appeal filed by the respondents side, the petitioner was directed not to "disturb" the respondents till the final disposal of the appeal.
2. ' The present challenge is to the aforementioned interim order. According to the learned counsel, the respondents keep and maintain milch cattle within the boundaries of the Municipal Corporation Lahore. They are not only cause for delay in the proper and permanent development of the city; but, also cause serious nuisance and sometimes are responsible for accidents. Thus the question of public hazard is also involved.
3. ' The respondents' writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge. It involved consideration, amongst others of the circumstance that the respondents had been provided adequate alternative arrangements. Notwithstanding the same they had insisted on maintenance of the status quo regarding keeping of the cattle in the city. The learned Intra-Court Appeal Bench of the High Court considered it a fit case for re-examination, admitted the appeal and passed the aforenoted interim order, which has been challenged in this petition for leave to appeal.
4. ' Learned counsel states that the Intra-Court Appeal has not yet been disposed of.
5. After hearing the learned counsel, although with regard to the propriety to grant the impugned order, could be examined on various grounds; yet, keeping in view the practice of this Court to keep interference with the discretionary interim orders passed by the High Court, at the minimum we refrain from doing so. Therefore, for this reason alone, we do not consider it a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. The petitioner, however, is directed to make a request to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court for a very early disposal of the Intra Court Appeal.
6. ' This petition with the foregoing observations, is accordingly dismissed.