Pakistan Case LawMESSRS MEHFIL CINEMA THROUGH FAIZANUL HAQ, THE MANAGING PARTNER Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH MEMBER,
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of West Pakistan challenging notices issued under section 6-A of the West Pakistan Entertainments Duty Act, 1958, as inserted by the West Pakistan Entertainments Duty Ordinance, 1969, and also questioned the vires of the Ordinance. Although no one appeared for the petitioner at the hearing, the High Court admitted the petition for regular hearing due to its public importance and suo motu stayed the recovery of tax exceeding 50 percent. Dissatisfied with the partial stay, the petitioner sought special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court should have suspended the operation of the statutory provision itself. The Supreme Court held that the petition was wholly misconceived because a party not appearing before the High Court has no cause to complain against its order, and furthermore, no court can suspend the operation of a law unless that law has first been declared ultra vires, as interim relief is limited to staying actions taken under the law upon a prima facie case. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Can a court suspend the operation of a law before declaring it to be ultra vires?
- Does a party that failed to appear before the High Court have cause to complain against an order passed in its absence?
- What is the extent of interim relief a court can grant regarding actions taken under a challenged statute?
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioner in this case filed a writ petition in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore Seat, to challenge the validity of certain notices issued in pursuance to section 6-A of the West Pakistan Entertainments Duty Act, 1958, as inserted by the West Pakistan Entertain-- ments Duty Ordinance, 1969. The petitioner also maintained that the Ordinance of 1969 was itself ultra vires.
Along with the writ petition a Civil Miscellaneous applica--tion was also moved for staying the operation of the orders issued by the authorities under the above-mentioned provisions. When both these matters came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. But the High Court, instead of dismissing both the writ petition as well as the Misc. Application for non-prosecution, heard the learned Advocate-General and admitted the writ petition for a regular hearing on the ground that the questions arising in it which had been noticed in an earlier order passed by the High Court on the 4th December 1969, possibly in some other petition, were of some public importance. The recovery of the tax purported to be levied in pursuance of these provisions was also stayed suo moto to the extent that the demands were in excess of 50 per cent.
The petitioner concerned has now come up for special leave to appeal and its grievance is that the High Court should have not only granted this limited stay but also suspended the operation of section 6-A of the West Pakistan Entertainments Duty Ordinance, 1969.
This petition is, in our opinion, wholly misconceived, for, the petitioner not having appeared before the High Court hall no cause to complain against the order passed by the High Court. In any event no order could be made by any Court suspending the operation of a law unless that law had been declared to be ultra vires by the Court. All that could be done was to stay the operation of the action taken under the law if prima facie a case was made out.
This petition is, accordingly, dismissed as being wholly misconceived.
Judges on this bench
- Hamoodur Rahman960 judgments
- Sajjad Ahmad512 judgments