MAQBUL COTTON FACTORY vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, ExcisE & TAXATION DEPARTMENT, LAHORE AND ANOTHER
These petitions for special leave to appeal were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan to challenge the interim orders of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The underlying writ petitions, which challenged the validity of Rule 12 of the West Pakistan Cotton Control Rules 1966, remained pending before the High Court. The High Court had admitted the petitions, stayed the recovery of dues prior to the notification date of December 3, 1973, but declined to stay prospective recoveries after that date. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the impugned orders were purely discretionary in nature, did not adjudicate upon any substantive rights, and did not finally decide any legal questions. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interim orders, observing that the petitioner's proper remedy was to request the High Court to expedite the hearing of the pending writ petitions. The petitions for special leave to appeal were accordingly dismissed.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with an interim discretionary order of the High Court where no substantive rights have been finally adjudicated?
- What is the appropriate remedy for a petitioner aggrieved by a High Court's refusal to grant a full interim stay while the main writ petition remains pending?
- Rule 12, West Pakistan Cotton Control Rules 1966
1. ' HAMOODUR REHMAN, C. J.-These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the orders of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in two writ petitions filed to challenge the validity of the provisions of rule 12 of the West Pakistan Cotton Control Rules, 1966.
2. ' The writ petitions are still pending in the High Court. The High Court has admitted them for regular hearing, stayed recovery of the dues prior to the date of the notification of 3-12-1973 but refused to stay prospective recovery after the said date. The petitioner now seeks to challenge these orders.
3. These are purely discretionary orders of the High Court by which no right has been adjudicated upon nor has any question been decided finally We do not consider these to be fit cases for interference. If the petitioner has any grievance, he should ask the High Court to expedite the hearing of the writ petitions.
4. ' With this observation, both the petitions are dismissed.