Messrs RESEARCH AND COLLECTION SERVANTS vs RAHEEL ASIF KHAN and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court in a writ petition challenging the award of a contract. The core legal question concerns the competence and jurisdiction of the High Court to grant interim relief in the pending constitutional petition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to interfere with the interim order, holding that the petition for leave to appeal was incompetent as the main controversy was still pending adjudication before the High Court where all legal and factual issues could be thoroughly examined. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to raise any substantial question of law of public importance. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will generally not interfere with interlocutory orders of the High Court when the matter is sub judice before it and no question of public importance is involved.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court when the main controversy is still pending adjudication?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal lie against an interlocutory order that raises no question of law of public importance?
- Is the High Court competent to grant interim relief in a writ petition challenging a contract?
ORDER
' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 21st of July, 1998, an interim order was passed by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,13631 of 1998 instituted by Raheel Asif Khan and 9 others, the respondents Nos.1 to 10. The said order is hereby quoted:-- "It is argued that the contract has been given in over ruling the advice of the Law and Justice Division, therefore, illegal. It is added that the amount likely to the fetched in 450 Crores whereas the contract has been given only for 44.1 Crores. Inter alia argued that this is unconsciousable and illegal. The respondents request for time. Adjourned to 28-7-1998. Learned Deputy Attorney- General besides other documents should also produce the relevant extract of Census, 1998.
C.M. No, 2 of 1998.
' The respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are restrained from making any payment, whatsoever, to respondent No,5 in the meanwhile."
' Against the above order, the petitioner has filed this petition for leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel argued that the High Court was not competent to give an interim relief to the respondents for lack of jurisdiction.
3. We have not been persuaded to interfere with the aforesaid order. The point which has been urged before us by the learned counsel, may certainly be available to be raised and argued by him before the High Court. This petition is not competent on the face of it because the controversy is still pending adjudication before the High Court where the matter can be thrashed out both on legal and admitted facts of the case. He has also not been able to raise any question of law of public importance before us. This being so, we are not inclined to proceed further in the case. With the above' observation, this petition stands disposed of.