MUHAMMAD RIAZ, DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN PUBLIC WORKS
This petition was filed against an interlocutory order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in a pending writ petition. The petitioner, the Director-General of the Pakistan Public Works Department, challenged specific observations made by the High Court regarding his conduct, which suggested potential disciplinary implications and personal liability for costs should the writ petition be accepted. The core legal question concerned whether such preliminary observations, made before the final adjudication of the case, could prejudice the fair determination of the matter on its merits. Upon the petitioner's request to have the writ petition decided without the influence of these prior remarks, and with the respondent's counsel expressing no objection to this course of action, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition. The Court held that the High Court must decide the underlying writ petition strictly on its own merits, uninfluenced by the preliminary observations made against the petitioner. The principle established is that judicial observations regarding a party's conduct made at a preliminary stage should not fetter or prejudice the final adjudication of the case.
- Can a High Court judge make preliminary observations regarding a party's conduct that might influence the final decision of a writ petition?
- Is it appropriate for a court to direct that a pending writ petition be decided on its merits without being influenced by prior interlocutory observations?
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.---This petition is directed against an order dated 28-2-1997 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Civil Miscellaneous No,688 of 1997 filed in Writ Petition No,351 of 1997. In this order passed at the preliminary stage, the learned Single Judge made inter alia the following observations:-- "Prima facie, the conduct of the respondent does not appear to be consistent with the service discipline. He will be put to notice that in case this writ petition is accepted he will have to bear the cost of the petition from his own pocket. Observations with regard to his delinquent conduct may also be made in the final judgment by this Court."
2. ' The learned Single Judge further observed that respondent Murid Ahmad Baluch, who had taken charge of Central Civil Division No,III, Islamabad and was performing his function against that post, would not be disturbed.
3. ' Petitioner Muhammad Riaz, who is Director General of Pak. P.W.D., Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, has appeared in person to argue this petition. The petitioner submitted that the only reason for his filing this petition was that he felt aggrieved by the observations made by the learned Single Judge, reproduced above, which are likely to prejudice him and, therefore, he would be satisfied and will not press this petition if a direction is given to the learned Court to decide the writ petition on its own merits without being influenced by the said observations made regarding the petitioner.
4. ' Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent stated that he had no objection if such direction, as prayed by the petitioner, is given by this Court. In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. We, however, direct that the learned High Court will not be influenced by the said observations made against the petitioner, while deciding the writ petition on merits.