• Friday, August 7, 2020

SC refuses to suspend SHC order on sugar inquiry

Discussion in 'Insaf - Justice' started by ghazi52, Jul 3, 2020.

  1. ghazi52

    ghazi52 PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    47,120
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Ratings:
    +49 / 68,283 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    SC refuses to suspend SHC order on sugar inquiry

    Mills questions IHC’s ‘hasty’ order in sugar crisis case

    Hasnaat Malik
    July 03, 2020


    [​IMG]




    ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to suspend the Sindh High Court’s (SHC) interim order restraining the federal authorities from taking action against around 20 sugar mills of Sindh on basis of the reports of a sugar inquiry commission.

    The commission – led by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) chief – was formed by the federal government to probe into a sudden shortage of sugar that resulted in a steep hike in its prices in January.

    In its preliminary report – unveiled on April 5 – the commission had claimed that sugar mills belonging to the country’s top politicians including PML-N’s Shehbaz Sharif’s, PTI’s Jahangir Tareen and Khusro Bakhtiar and PML-Q’s Moonis Elahi were among the beneficiaries of the crisis.

    In its forensic report – issued on May 21 – the commission had accused the sugar mill owners of earning illegal profits to the tune of billions of rupees through unjustified price hikes, benami transactions, tax evasion, misuse of subsidy and purchasing sugarcane off the books.

    The Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PSMA) challenged the commission and its reports in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) which on June 12 stopped the government from taking action against sugar mills. However, on June 20 the IHC declared that the commission is legal and dismissed the PSMA petition.

    On June 24, the Sindh High Court (SHC) restrained the federal authorities till June 30 from taking action against around 20 sugar mills of Sindh on basis of the reports. The federal government on June 29 challenged the SHC interim order in the apex court.

    On Thursday, when a division bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Ijazul Ahsan up the federal government petition, Counsels for sugar mills owners questioned the IHC’s “hasty” order and reiterated their stance that the commission was constituted by violating the legal procedures.

    Earlier, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Javed Khan objected to the SHC interim ordert.

    The AGP submitted that regulators like the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), and the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) are under the influence of powerful commercial entities.

    “Therefore, a commission of inquiry had become necessary as none of the government departments and agencies are doing their jobs properly,” he said.

    He said the commission's report was merely in the nature of information. If anyone's reputation had been affected by this report they had the remedy to file a defamation suit. “However, they could not come to the court in its constitutional jurisdiction by filing writ petition in the high courts,” he said.

    Justice Ijazul Ahsan also endorsed the AGP’s contentions and wondered how the SHC could intervene after the IHC decision, wherein the federal government is asked to follow due process in this case.

    Justice Ahsan also wondered as why constitution of commission was not challenged at an initial stage. However, Makhdoom Ali Khan and Salman Akram Raja – counsels for sugar mills owners – strongly objected the AGP contentions.

    Leading counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan said the IHC passed order in an accelerated ‘preponed’ hearing at “a feverish pace” but the failed to give reasons for the verdict even after passage of 11 days.

    He submitted that the IHC had initially granted interim relief and adjourned the case till June 25. However, the court took up the case earlier on June 19 even without any request by the government.

    “On that day, the IHC told the mills without any notice to argue their case. This they did till 2.30 pm on a Friday. The AGP then sought time to argue the case. Even without consulting counsel for the petitioners, the IHC adjourned the case till Saturday, which was not a working day.

    “When the AGP concluded arguments on Saturday the petitioners [the sugar mills owners] requested that they too be granted a day to respond as the AGP had produced a new notification in the court the veracity of which they wanted to check.

    “The request was declined. The mills then asked time to submit a written response but a short order was passed on that very day but the reasons are not available even today,” the counsel said.

    He said the hurry to pass orders but delay in giving reasons was hard to understand.

    Khan while referring to the Article 14 said the commission severely damaged reputation of the petitioners without hearing them. He submitted that gone were the days when the right to reputation was only a civil right which had no constitutional protection.

    "This was a right which in the last 5 decades has received increasing recognition from constitutional courts in common law countries.” He cautioned against the danger of a narrow reading of the fundamental rights which may haunt posterity and blight the legal landscape for generations.

    Khan urged the Supreme Court that fundamental rights should not be so narrowly interpreted that the specter of such interpretation haunts posterity for ages in a blighted legal landscape.

    The leading counsel said the opposition and citizens can make arguments about regulatory capture of the government. It was not open to a government to plead that it had been captured and, therefore, it can only operate through inquiry commissions, he added.

    “This is our case that the commission was appointed not by a decision of the government and it includes people who have already made up their minds in the matter,” he said.

    He said the mills were not heard and no notification was published in the official gazette.

    Justice Ahsan observed publication was unnecessary as everyone knew of the commission's existence. Khan disagreed and submitted that this was a statutory requirement.

    “To rule against this view, the SCP will have to overrule decisions going back more than a hundred years,” he said, citing a number of cases to support his argument.

    The CJP asked the counsel whether the commission’s report is piece of evidence.

    The bench later did not suspend the SHC order as it adjourned the case till July 14 when a three-judge bench will hear the government appeal against the high court’s order.
     
  2. Pandora

    Pandora SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,776
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Ratings:
    +8 / 8,103 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Australia
    Ding Ding Ding Judicial Turds strike again
     
  3. Safriz

    Safriz BANNED

    Messages:
    20,857
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Ratings:
    +6 / 11,085 / -7
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    So...judiciary is openly supporting terrorists and the corrupt while openly working against the military and the government.
    Does this happen anywhere else too?
    Or only Pakistan is blessed with such and "Azaad Adliya"?
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  4. LeGenD

    LeGenD MODERATOR

    Messages:
    10,552
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Ratings:
    +44 / 11,531 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Pakistani judiciary is completely compromised, it seems.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  5. ghazi52

    ghazi52 PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    47,120
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Ratings:
    +49 / 68,283 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    SC sets aside SHC stay order, allows govt to take action against sugar mill owners

    Haseeb Bhatti
    Jul 14 2020


    [​IMG]


    A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed heard the case. — SC website/File


    The Supreme Court on Tuesday, setting aside a stay order by the Sindh High Court, allowed the government to take action against sugar mill owners in light of recommendations of the sugar inquiry commission.

    A three-member bench, comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and headed by Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed, heard the case.

    In its short order, the top court told federal authorities to "operate in accordance with the law". The court also cautioned the government against taking "unnecessary steps" against sugar mill owners. Additionally, government officials were restrained from commenting on the sugar commission report.

    The Supreme Court directed the high courts of Sindh and Islamabad — where cases pertaining to the matter were being heard — to issue a decision within three weeks. The IHC has issued a verbal order in the case but a detailed order is yet to be issued.

    During the proceedings, the attorney general argued that SHC's order was "against the law".

    He told the apex court that the government was also constituting a commission on the fuel shortage face by the nation recently but wanted the "stay order problem to be resolved first".

    A detailed judgement is expected to be released later.

    Sugar probe report and action
    On Feb 20, the government constituted an inquiry committee to probe into a sudden hike in sugar price and shortage of the commodity across the country. It was asked to ascertain if the production this year was less than past years, if the low produce was the prime reason for price hike and whether the minimum support price was sufficient.

    On May 21, the commission delivered its report identifying potential violations of laws by different manufactures of sugar and others acting in collusion or in concert with the manufacturers of sugar thereby being liable to possible legal action(s) or proceedings as warranted under different statutes.

    On June 10, the Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PSMA) moved petitions before the Islamabad High Court against the constitution of the inquiry commission and its report. Later, they approached the SHC.

    Last month, the SHC had restrained the federal authorities from taking action against around 20 sugar mills of Sindh on the sugar inquiry commission's report. Its stay order came in a case filed by Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills and around 19 other mills of Sindh against the report of the inquiry commission against cartelisation and price hike of sugar.

    The federal government challenged the stay order in the top court, arguing that if the contention of the sugar mills were to be accepted, no authority would ever be able to take any action against any party on the apprehensions that it may adversely affect its name, business and reputation.

    The federal authorities further said that the instant matter related to the fundamental rights of the people, in particular the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution, which includes the right to have access to essential food items to sustain their lives at a reasonable and affordable cost without being charged exorbitant amount for items such as sugar.

    Meanwhile, the IHC, in an order last month, had allowed the government agencies to take action against the sugar barons responsible for the shortage of the commodity earlier this year and dismissed a petition requesting the court to stop a crackdown started on the basis of the inquiry report.

    While disposing of petitions of the PSMA and sugar mill owners, the IHC declared the constitution of the inquiry commission to probe the cartelisation and price hike of sugar lawful and also validated its proceedings and report.

    In its order, the IHC declared: “The constitution of the commission vide notification, dated 16.03.2020, read with notification, dated 25.03.2020 and pursuant thereto its proceedings and report, dated 21.05.2020 have not been found to be ultra vires of the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act, 2017 nor in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The report, dated 21.05.2020 was, therefore, lawfully considered by the federal cabinet in its meeting held on 21.05.2020.”
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2