Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Ltd and Others (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)

5y3- C-r-^;rrt.-.r : ll^!.-. .\ {,t..f. - Nshl^,.h- L q..idt6 I Eia4

IN THE HIGH CQ URT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

CONST. PETITION NO.D-3004 OF 2O2O

Present:

Mr, Irtstice Nlohattmrad Karim Khan Agha NIr. I us tice Omar Sial

Pt,titiorrers Mirpurkhas sugar mills Limited and 19 others through M/s. Makhttoom Ali Khan' Abdul Sattar Pirzaia, Chulam Hussain Shah, Samiur Rehman' l(ornal Anrvar ancl Fahad Khan, aclvocates'

Ilesponclents/ State Through Mr. Kashif Sarwar Paracha, Aclditional Attor nii' Get.reral for Pakistan and Mukesh Kumar Khatri Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan'

Dates of hearings: 04.08.2020, 05.08.2020 and 07.08'2020 Date of Announcetnettt 77.08.2020.

ORDER

I Moharnmad Karim Khan Agha, t.- By adrnirristrative orcler clated 29.07.2020 this cor-rstitutional petition rt,as assignecl to this special bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this court with a view to tleciding the same as exPeditiously as p:ossrble in line with the orcler of the I-lon'ble supreme Court tlated 14.07.2020' Tlrrouglrtlriscorrstitutionalpetitionthepetitiorrerswhoaresugarmill owners have prayed for the following relief:-

1)Declare the lrnpugnetl Notification of March '16' 2020 and the ltnpuglls.l Ropo,:t.,f May 21,2020 anel all subsequent ancl consequent actio,rs ancl oiciers of thri Ilesponclents inclucling but not limited to the erctiotts takc'tr antl rlecisions lnacle in pursuance thereof' whether taken rlit'ectly or inclilectlv through clepartments, offices' agencies' authorlties, officers, .,ifi.iult, ernployees, agents and assigns in any maru1er whatsoever, to be without iawful authority and of no legal ttr <1uash effect, with regarti to the petitiouers, ancl may also be pleasecl the Ir-npugncci Report ntl all such actious and orders; .-r

2)I']rohil-rit the Responclerrts joir-rtl1' 3n6 severally ancl all -other - go\/erllmcnt c{epartments, offices, agencies, authorities' officers' t Iffi.lulr, employees, agents antl assigns both from directly as well as indirectly taling any id,r"rr" action or passing any adverse orc'lers or placing utrl' r.eli.-,,-l.e up()11 ol'makirrg anl' reference to tlre Impugned i<..1,nri o,'r.i7 nr acti.t-ts tak.'r-r or tlecisiorrs tnatle in Pursuance theretf i. nlty t1rrlltlter lvhatsoet,er. agairrst thc l)c.titioners and/or prejuclicial to their interest or bcing in arry manner whatsoever influencecl thereby; ancl iuterit-t-t antl intet'locutory relief, in the same terms, may also be

gr.anted irrclucling but not lirnitetl to suspending the Impugned Report ancl all actiorrs takerr ancl clecisions matle in Pursuance thereof;

3)Grant such other relief or mould any of the reliefs souSht in such mallnel'as may be consiclered appropriate;

2.I hc brief facts of the case ale that tlre petitioners are owners of sugar mills in Sindh engagecl, amongst otiler things, in the production/ nranufacture and sale of sugar. on 16.03.2020, a notification was issuecl by tl.re Ministry of Interior ur.rrler S.3 of the I'akistan Cornuissions of Inquiry Act, 2017 ("the impugned Notification") which constituted a Commissiorr of Inquiry, " to probe into the incrense in sugnr prices". The Cornrnission culrninated its work with a Report datctl 21 .05.2020 ("the imptrgned Report"). ['he impugnecl Report cast various aspersions against the petitioners and other sugar millers in Pakistan indicating that sugar mills throughout Pakistan hacl been involved in criminal activities. Tlrc irnpugnecl Report was placecl before tlre Fec'leral Cabinet on 21',05 2020 wl-rich aprprovecl it antl lLltnerous actiotrs wl-rich were recommenclecl in the ir-npugneel Report in a so callecl action mah'ix leacl to several letters (enclosing the I imprugnerl Ileport) being sent by Mirza sl-rahzac'l Akbar (who was a special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Interior ancl Accountability when the exercise startccl but was later ntade an Arlviser with the status ol'a Minister - hereinaller ref-errcd to as "Arlviserr') to various agencies/ olganizations in effect directing them to initiate proceeclings against the petitioners anc{ other Sugar Millers.

3.f he terms of Reference of the Cornnrission ancl Member s of the Cortrrnission are set out below in the irnpugnecl Notification for ease of reference Govemment of Pakistan Ministry of Interior

Islamabad, the 16th March 2020

NOTIFICATION

No.F.5/ i4/2t)20-RA: In excrcist' of the powers conferred by Section 3 of Pakistan Commissions of Inquiry Act, 2017, tl-re Federal Government is pleased to constitute Inquiry Commission under Pakistan Commissions of Inquiry Act, 2017 to probe into the a irrc rease in sugar prices.

2, 'l'he Comrnissiorr shall comprisc' the followiug Officers:- L N{r'. Wajid Zia, Director General, FIA. Chairman ii. Mr. Gohar Nafees, DG, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab Member. iii Mr. Al'rnlad Karnal, DDG, III Member iv Mr'. Bilat llasool, Executive Director' (SECP) Meml-,er

a

Member ML. Maiid Hussain Chaudhry, Joirrt Director' SBP V1 Dr.BashirullahKhan,DC,DirectorateGeneralofllrtelligetrce Member ancl lnvestigahon, FBR, Islamabad

of the

3.The following shall be the terms of Reference (TORs) Cornmission:-

to past years?

il Whethel the prtrcluction, this year, was low as comPared Was low ProLluctiol-l the prirnary reastln for increase in prices?

L'l Was the minimum suPPort price sufficient?

Dicl the Mills purchase suga;cane of exorbitantly higher prices than the

C

minimum suPPort prices? If yes, then reasons therefore; cl Reasons fol rnills trot purchasiug sugarcane for a limitetl periocl of a prices;

few r,r,eeks, from the farmers ancl its impact, if any on sugar increase in Ex- e Basic for cletertnirration of Ex-Mill price? Reasons for Mill price;

Market n-ranipulation/cartelization by sugar miils' if any; of sttgar anc-l whether any ll Irnpact of for.'vartl c()lltracts ou the prices rnalaficle is involvecl.

h Whether rnargins betweerr Ex-Mill ancl retail prices increased' thereof antl comparer-l to previous yeal's, or otherwise lf yes' reasons I poterrtial beneficiaries;

lmpact of tax increase or1 sugal prices at E'x-Mill/Retail level; I-loartling at whole sale/retail level and within sugar mills vis-d-vis stocks of last year;

k Was export of sugar iustifiecl? Any subsidy given on exPort and its

impact with poterrtial ber-ref iciaries;

lJasis for detennination of retail price of sugar' and ltt Role of various stakel-rolclers, inclucling government institutions private sector in increase in sugar prices' including ti nrely/ preventive/ preel-nptive remec-lied fleasures of control sugar prices aurl rnalafide, if arry, of arly stakeholder; lt verification of the sale of sugar to fincl out malpractices of hoarding & maniPulatioll of supply to the market to maximize profiteering; o Physical verification of stock to find whether there is any excess/shortage of skrck as shown in the books ancl the verification of the genuirreness of the sale recortl; ancl, J he role of Cor-npetition Comtnission of Pakistan in this crisis;

P

Benan'ri transactions ancl profits (approx') earned during the (I sugar crisis;

.I.l-reCornmissiorrslrallsublnititsreporttotlrePrimeMinisterwitlrin t'

t forty (40) days af ter issuance of tl.ris notif ication' Any other issue, deemecl apPl'oPriate, related to the increase in recent sugar prices;

4 'fhis Cornnrission will also be empowerecl uncler section 10(b) of tlre Act ibicl to constitute special tearns consisting of officets from

(.xecutivL' autlronties arrLl c\lrerts In spt'clfic fielcis, fclr the purposes of assistrtrg tltc Corrrt.tttsstotl ttt ctrlt.luchl'tg .-l l-l incluirv The spe'cial tearns sh.rll havc such powers <-ls tllclf bc prescribetl uuder thts Act' St1/ - (Shou kat Ah Khan) Section Of ficer (FIA) " I lre N'lanager, I)t tt.tht.tg Pt ess Cot Pora[roll of Pa[<tstatl' Isla rna barl

4 'l'lre. so calletl .tctlon rllatrr\ w,hrch rr,as approverl by tlre Cabinet aftel the sttbtntsstotr of the rnlprugnetl l{eptrrt is alstl set out below for ease of reference NAB fo trtt,cshgalr srrgtr urbsLdtl scmtt, PM iP?ro?es nctron rnntru on tlrc sugnr urqrrtry Cotttrtrtsstott rt'pttrt

Prnttc Mrtttsttt' lrtrrrm Kltntt nltltrtx'etl scnrhng n ret'erence to NAB to ttttu,shgatc sugnr substdtl sc,.:,n tplttle gtttng ftnnl nod to tlrc 7-Ttourt nc tton lnnhtx'-on tht' xtgnr tnqutry Corttrtrtttee re1tort m a luglt lercl ntprttltB ltld todny nt lslttttrnl,al.

Atlt,rser ott ttccott lttnbthtrl nrtt) rrfternr Bnrnster Shnhznd Akbnr presenletl nctrot runtnt to llrc tnectmg He hnefetl the nrcetrng thnt tlrc nctrort rttrttnr rc ltrcltnrcd rtt tlrc hgltl o.f r,:cot tu renLlatnns o.f Cnbtnet r

ott tlr [tttrlrngs of srrgnr tttrTrttrry Cotttttttsaon report ttkmg nll duc ltgtl ltroccss into c,.trrsrdernlrott PNI ltttdr:d Slnlutrt Akbnr for lns ,'iiort to lt tt' n t,L'stt grtltLrtrs ltt lttgtcnl otd nnd lroTtcd t trcw m of (selfl r

nctorrntnlnltty tporrli slart tn tltt' t'ortntnl otrcL' llrc nctntt tatrfi $ rtnT t:rtrcnted m tlrc latter ntul sprrtt

fltc Cnhnet on h'1ttt1 21 ultrlc tlpProrttrtg ttttkr,tg tnrytrrtl Conrrutssrott rcport ptrltltc tskt'd Arlt'tsL'r ott ttt (-(\tttttlbtlt ty nt:rl intertor to look rnto lir,trr tit,t1,-tr rtis-Bott('rtttttctlt stlst tts rtnd regulntorLl regLruc, rulnt penil r,cltons crtn ltt' tnhen lty dfferant 8o'()erttflrcnt figencrcs aSntnst tlr otpncrs rnt,oh,ctl ut t,:,ongdotttgls, a tnne frnttrc for gotternrtrcnt og tcrcs to rnnke |'ccotlerrcs fonn nnll ozoncts nnd formuLntnn of n strgur polLcy.

Bnrrtstar Sltnltznd Akbnr uylmrrcd set'ctt Pottrts nchon nrnlrtx to tlrc nrcetntg descnhnrg t'trtutre cottse of r'ctton hry drft'erent 4ot)ernnlent ,,ga,,a,i* ,r,r,rrnu'il ttt ttrkc lln littrhtrgs ()l'ttttlutry Conuntssnn to tlrc ligtcnl e rul t\') ntik? strrc lltnt lltosc [otrnd grt ty o.f conutrrtttng frnuds nit,[ ,lectrt'rrtg peoytle ol' Pnkrstttr u'ttrrld fru e tlrc nrusc " PTl got)ct'tlnt?nl trndar llrc lttdt'rshrp ol PM Intrnn Klnn rs llr first -got,t'nnnent et,er rn Pnktstrm tltnt lns mttntcd n sclf-nccountnbrlrty i proct:ss n1 the cotnttrry",lrc lold tlrc ttteett t.

Tltc Actiorr Plnn rclrdes the f ollotuirrg seuen points'

'lltc ntcctttrg tllltt ou('tl settdrrtg t rt'liranct'lo NAB fis reco tntended by flctt()n ntntrft to ttR,?sngnt? totnl of otrr Rs.29 BtLliott subsidtl nllocntcd nnrl thsltrtrscd lo Sttgtr utdustnl hy Prot'manl ard Lederal

I o

L,tn,arrrnrttl itottt lrrsl 1tl'c Vcttrs ttrclttdnlS stfustdy cttrc bV PTI gooertrttrerrL rLnrler tlrc tntteluu' protLdtd lty Nntionnl. Accountnbiltty rtLeeturg tlnt NAB rpotrld Ortlrrrntrt'e . Sltnltznd Akltrtr trfornrcd tlr tadrcs gioen to Sugnr nlso lre reqttcsted to probe the tsstte of sr trrdttstrrl .frortt l!)85 otnpnrds tnd tct rrrrtttte tlt cnnnnnl ltrosccutiott iL,lrcrc et,,t,lcttr',, o.[ ttrtstrse ttf ,ttrtlrortfi rtlttcd to sttbstdy tssttes nrc iotttLd

FBII nskerl ttt nntt,slrgrrtt' tlrc rncttnre ond snlts tax relnted |rnuds,

'I'lte report JOUnd SetterOl tnX (,ttostlnS ntul fJAttrutrt trttlr\a(ttotts dtrrtttg tt1l'cstIStt t totl such ns Al- [trttrdulcrtt Pttl.tkas t{ sttgtrr ttr lt'rs Arnbrn strg'tr ntrlls cttrtcerrl Ilrodttcttotl nnd snlc o-[ 7'02 m lnn aqnr ot'ar one bttgs strtcc 2017-13 trt atndc ttlLontc otld snles tnx ruortlt the dnte brttnn, FBR $ ask?d t(t sltllnttt tlrc reltort tutltrn 90 dnys t'rom of regrstrnttort of rnqrrrrtl tlrrottqlr Mtrustrtl o.f Fmnnce' J 'flrc tssrtt:s rcLatetl to tnrh'ltznlrcrt ifld n h-cotttPetttn'e collusnn trt of sugrtr ntdttstrtl tportlrl I'c ttn'estrgntt'd by Cornpetirott Cottttttisston Pnktslnrt (CCP) Tlt rnqrrrrry Cottrrrttsslon found tlnt CCP runs of tlra srrgnr t'rtrtt'l srrrct' 2009 tntd tondrrcted n senrch of tlrc ( ora,7i--('ri

Pohtslntt srtgnr tttrlls Assttt'trtlttttr (P5MA) ofllce' declnrtng tt n lrttnl' surce' Tlrc nctiott rrtttnr'r of tlrc cnrk'l brtl lntled to tnkt' rtntl ictton elter nnd rttntrrt Ttrttttule! ppltortrLtttty to CCP lo cstnhhslt its credibrhty rcktrl tt to tn\)esttgfite the tsstrcs telntctl to Cnrteluntion nnd Anti' 'llrc gouetruuertt tlso ('ontp(tttn)e collrsrotr lrtoltlrglttt'd tn lhc rcTtort rlccttlad to tlliltotn! tMt) tttt'tt tcrs of L-'l-P lt'tlhttt t teek' CCP * nskcd lo srfuntrt rts rtport lutthttt g0 tlnysfton tlrc tlnte of rcgstrnhon of utqutnl tlrottglt Arlt'rser otI nccotttttnb L\' Corttrrtrssion of Pnktstnn toil rtfi,t,strgntt, tlr rsste f Corteluntrcrt nfid Atttt-contpettttttc cttllrtstort CCP tttll sr uttrl tlrc raport nlier 90 dmls o.f itrfunlnn o.f

ttulutnl rttttl rcport tttll ttc st muttarl lo l:eder Gorarrunent lhrouglt Arlorscr ort Acctnntnl'th ttl

4.'l'lu' tssrtcs relttr'd to exporl Stroctt't7s, lcttns defm ts/tarite-oft's nnd snle of plcrlgerl slocks trc sant to tlr Stnta bnnk of Pnlctstnn The SBP rs nskttl !tt sr trtrrt lltt' rcltorl tlttlnr 90 dnys tu ferlernl Gopertttntttt tlrrtntglt Muttslrry of F trtrtrue.

'llt nrqrttry Ctrrrt ltt rsstot t potrrtcd ortt tltt' corpornte frmuls conuritted lttJ srtgnr rtrrlls tlrrc'rrBlt L.s\octtltctl cotttPtltt tcs hl<e Jl'n'D connntted c'o4rot',,k' fr'nttrl oJ' tls.3 (' brllrcm tln'orrglr oucr-ttnlued purclnse of tlss()cutt('{l cotltptntll JK ltrntntg StTslotts Ltd' And bookmg losses

tltrouglt rt. Tlrt' nclnn nntnx rcferrcd furtlrcr tnrcsttgatrct$ of t cr,ryot,t' frntuls ttf sttgttr ntllls m tht'lryltt of fndmgs of the Cotltttttsstotl r(Porl lo both t'edtrrtl lrn't'shgnhon Agctrcy (FlA) nnd 5a,.rtrtltt's rttrrl Lstlttttgr'Lor/,lill-5s1o,r oI Ptktstnn (SECP) Botlt tlrc ntattLtL's rrrc nsked lo sr ttttrt tlrcrr .fmdtngs to .federal gouernnrcnt t L't tln n 90 dat1s.

t)

tl

h Pr:ttattttnl rssrtes of [,tl<t' ctport of strgnr to A.f|]mfistnn attd nlo ey- Itttttrdertng cnnt( j-onr r(l durtng r tn'esttgttt totts of tlrc mtlutry 'tltc (-rrrrr rrr r.ssrori ttrt rcftrrarl kt FtA rTEa .y ls nsked to tt1lesttSate the trtrrotLs ft'iar ltt's offctttcs t(ltttL' I() Pot(ntt(1lly frrlcc exports to Afgltttrrstnrr nnd nrortctl lttrttdt'rutg tlnottgh bulk cnsh trnnsncttotts tuthttt 90 tlnys.

'l'Irc / tnqtrrrtl Cotttttttssron tlso fouttd tsnr ttt lcrs trtt'olted fit unnous o-[fi'rrces nttdcr ptttt'ttrcttti lrttl's srttJl s ]tttlltttc1lt to cttne-groruers ltt'lott' tlrc sttpltorl pncc Ntd ltgnl detluctrons ort nt'count of rueryht of cnnc 'I'1rc ncttotr rnntrrt rcfarrrd nll stclr potentnl offences to Atttt- Corrtqttntr E.stnltlrclmrrt (ACD of Prmllb, KP nnd Sindh prouinces Ittr lttrtlrer tnuasttgtlrrttts. f/rc At-Fs ttl'tlu' prtnlttt'cs rurll tlso sthnttt llrrr rclrorls tL'tllttn !)0 rlrtys

Vnriors ttssignnrents t,ere also giuen to the NAB, FIIR, CCP, SBP, IINSECP, ACE at p.869 to 8gg ol thP petition follotr:irq the findings o[ tlte itnpugnerl Report ond uurious lctters sent to suth boelies to l0le ficLtou agninsl tu lyrtls,

5 Ltarnerl counsel for the petitionels has contendecl that the ifrpugned Notrlrcatron and irnl-:ugnt cl Ileprort are u,tthout lawful authtrrity ancl of rro legal effccr because thel, have trot l',e'eu es tal'rlisl-retl in accorclarrce 'with tl-re Rules of Jlusrness, 1973 rvhrch \\'?s rl tnancl.rtor.y retluirer-uent oI law, that the est.tLrlrshn'rt rrt o1 the. Cor.rrr-r.r tssl()n \{cls rrot publrsher-l rn the offrcral Gazette as rc(lLrlre(1 [r1, lau,, that tlie cL)ntposltiotl of the ComtntSSloll \{aS llot in accordance witir tl'Lr. rmpugnctl Nohficatrot-t as one r-ncmbcr frot-n the State Bank of Pakistan r,1rcl r1(rt tneet the t equileti rlualif rcatron ancl a 7tl' member was aclded to the Cor.r-u-nrssron after its composrtlor.r har'l bccrr finalizecl antl hacl already started its rvork n,hrch r-nacle thc llrpugnecl Ilcport rllcgal; that thc pctrtiorrers were cleniccl thcir rrght to be heard before tl're rr-trpugnecl Report was finahzecl and thus they rr'ere corrrletnneci unhearcl clesprte aclverse [trrttngs/cotnments belng maLle agairrst ther.n ancl thc sr.rgar rnclustry irr the impugnerl Report; that at least two srgnat()rles \A,('rr' str.lllgel's to tlre tt-tlpu13cd I(eport, .l 3 tletlrber Colnurtttec, crt'.rtcrl uncler cloubtful tcg.rl auth()rrty, harl already been tn existence looking rrto the sarlle rssues urrrler sirnilar terlns of refercucc' and l-rad askecl for an e\p<llrsr()r'r of the Cor]lllrttce as rvcll as a legal covc'r ior the same vitle rts lettcr t clatccl t)9 03 2020, lvhlch lt'tte'r rnclrcatcrl potential culpabrlitv of tl-re petihoners antl those rn the sugar urciustry, .ls .r conserluence of whtch the Commission carne rnto being - hence at least 3 out of the T lnembel's of the Comrnission were br.rsecl .r nt'l h.rcl alreatll, r-u.rclc u1, thcil r-rrrntls about potential illegalities courrlrttecl by the petihorler-s atlrl other sugar mrllers ru Pakistan; that bias was

IZ

alsrr t:vic'lencecl in the fact tl-rat the Cor-rrmittee submitted a rePort dated 24.03 2020 ,"vhich was after tlre creatioll of the Cornrnission anLl in that repolt the Cotnmittee has rnatle aclverse findings against the petitioners and the sugar industry and tlrus wherr the Commission was establisliecl it had already made uP its mintl about the culpability of the petitioners anti other tnetnbers of the sugar industry; that the Cor-nmissiorr clicl not act fairly as in particular they dicl not give the petitioners the opportunitV to be lrearcl before makirrg adverse finding against tl-re sugar intlush'v whiclr inclurlecl tl-rem ar-rcl that the so called action matrix anLl the irttters se nt pul suant to it by thc Aclr,iser v\/as agaillst the scheme of law in that each institution such as NAB, SECP, FBR etc. is an independent organization acttt-tg utrtler its own Statutol'y frarnewot'k aucl was not answelable to either tl're I)rirne Minister. tl"re Cabinet or the Arlviser; tlre Aclviser hacl no lawful authoritv t6 issue clilections to the statutory boclir.s conclusively indicating the culpability of the sugal millers ancl seekiug follow up reports; that the entire process was illegal ancl was clriven iu a n-ralafitle ltlannel to the cletriment of the petitioners lr-r support o[ his contentions he placecl reliarrce on Muhammad Suleman v' Abdul Ghani (PI-D 1978 SC 190), Government of Sindh v. Khan Ginners (PLD 201 1 SC 347), Trustees of the Port of I(arachi v. N.I(. Enterprises (PLD 2013 Sincllr 264), Mian Akbar Hussain r,. West Purrjab Government (PLD 1954 Lahore lBil), Muhammad Osrnan Ghani v. M. Ahmed, C.S'P, Election Tribunal (PLD 7967 Dacca 786), Province of East Pakistan v. Hasan Askary (PLD 7977 SC tl2), Muharnmad Ishaq v. Chief Adnrinistrator of Auqaf, Punjab (PLD 1977 SC (r39), Chulanr Qadir v. Municipal Conrrnittee (1988 CLC 7647), Sindh Engirreering Limited v. Custotns, Excise & Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (2003 I'lD 2862), Deputy Controller of Customs v. Abdul Shakoor Ismail Kaloodi (2006 SCMIT 1446), Chief Adrninistrator Auqaf v. Amna Bibi (2008 SCMR Governnrent of Punjab v. United sugar mills Ltd. (2008 SCMR 1148), Tehsil Municipal Admirristration v. Nomatr Azam (2009 SCMR 1070), Yousuf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia (PL.D 195t1 SC 104 at 117 G.), Benazir Bhutto v' President of Pakistan (PLD 2000 g:77), Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. Inrran Ahmed I(harr Niazi (PLD 2018 SC 1), Federation of Pakistan v' Haii Mtrhammad Saifullah Khan (PLD 1989 SC 166), Mustafa Inrpex, Karachi v. The .t Governrnent of Pakistan (PLD 2016 SC 808), Federation of Pakistan v Ms. Vacliyya S. I(halil & others at para 12 (unreporttrcl judgment of learned Division llench of lslarnabad l{igh Court), State of Madhya Pradesh v. A.iay Singh (AIII 1993 SC 825) Selling of National Assets including PIA at throwaway Prices: (in tlre nratter of 2079 SCMI( 1952), Qurban Ali Abbasi versus Province of Sindh

l3

tlrrotrglr Chief Secretary ancl 3 others (PLD 2009 Karachi 327), State Bank of pakistan v. Franklin Credit and Investment Company Ltd. (2010 scMR 121), IJaz Muhammad Kakar v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD20125C923), M'Q'M ancl others v. Province of Sinclh and others (2014 CLC 335), K. Viiaya Bhaskar Itecldy v. Governnrent of Andhra Pradesh (AIIi 1996 Andhra Pradesh 62), Peela Porhi v. state of A.P. (2005 (4) ALD 687 (DB) (Andhra Pradesh High Court), Dr. Arsalan Iftikhar v. Malik Riaz Hussain (PLD 2012 SC 903), Mitchell v. Georges (2015 scMR 1020), Marvin Baryaruha v. Attorney General [2019] UGFICCD 67), Asif Ali Zardari v. The State (PLD 2001 SC 568), Government of N'W'FP v' Hussain Ahmed Haroon (2003 SCNIR 104), S. Parthasarathi v. State of A'P' (AIR 19711 Suprerne Court 2701), Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 2386), Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C) Ltd. v' Lannor and Others (1969) 1QB 577), Locabail (U.K) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd. (2000) QB 451), N. Manoharan v' state (AIR 1981 Mac.lras 147), Prafulla Chandra Ratho v. state of orissa (AII{ .lgilil Olissa 18), State of Biha v. Lal l(rishan Advarri (2003) 8 SCC 361), |ai I'rakash Associates Ltd v. State of U.I'. (2004 (3) AWC 2059), Peter Thomas Mahon v. Air New Zealand Ltd. and others (1984 AC 808), Peters v. Davison 11992]1 2 NZLR 164 CA = 1998 NZLR I-EXIS 70 (Court of Appeal, Wellington, Neu, Zcalatrrl), Ainsworth v. Crinrinal fustice Commission [1992] HCA 10, Hazel Lawlor, Applicant v, The Members of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments, Respondents [2010 1 IR 170 (Supreme Clourt of lreland), Saleem Malik v. Pakistan Cricket Board (PLD 2008 SC 650), National Industrial Cooperative Credit Corporation Ltd. v. Province of Punjab (PLI) 1992 Lahole 462), Qazi Abdul Jalil v NWFP Forest DeveloPment Corporation through Chairman (2010 SCMR 1933), MCB Bank Limited, Karachi v. Abdul Walreed Abro (2016 SCMI{ 108), I(hushdil l(han Malik v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence Rawalpirrdi Cantt (PLD 2077 SC 173), Commissioner of Itrland Revenue v. Allah Din Steel & Ilolling Mills (2018 WD '1444), PTCL v' Irecleration of Pakistar.r (2016 I,ID 1.184), Indus Motors v. Pakistan (suit No.2249 of 2016 (unreportecl) (SB/SllC), Wateen Teleconr Ltd. v Sindh (2019 PTD 1030), Cerrtral Insurance Co. V The Central Board of Revenue (1993 SCMR 1232), Mayzoue Pak, International v, Additional Secretary, Government of Pakistan t (2002 CI-C 38il), Collector of Customs v. Askari Cenrent Ltd. (2016 I'TD 1886), Mirpurkhas sugar mills Ltd. V. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of Pakistan (2013 MLD 433), Shahtaj strgar mills Ltd. v Province of Puniab (1998 SCMR 2492), Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and 5 others v,

tLl

Janraluddin and Others (1996 SCMR 727 at 7 41. (para.10), Barrister Sardar Mulranrmad v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2013 Lahore 343 al 373 (para.41), 374 (para.43), 376 (pala.45), Rizwan Ashraf v. Federation of Pakistan (2020 PLC (CS) 605 at 616 A (para.i0), 621 (para.13), Senator Tai Haider v' Government of Pakistan (201U CLC 1910 at 1924 (para.2l3), Ahmad Nawaz Shah v. Chairman, CBR (2002 SCMR 560 at 568 (para.(r), Khalid Sardar v, Secretary, Ministry of F-inance, GoP (2015 PLC (CS) 460 at 466 (para.10), 467 (pata.11), Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Akranr (1995 SCMR 1647 at 1652 B), Federal Public Service Commission v. Altaf Htrssain (20i5 PLC (CS) 1130 at"1'l'37 C),Pitzada Janraltrddin A. Siddiqui (2()12Pl,C (CS) 996 at 1003 E), Syed Hussain Haider v' Covernrnent of the Punlab (2019 PLC (CS) 1 at 9-10 (paras.8 & 9), Begum Agha Abdul Karinr Shorish and Ors. V' Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore and Ors. (1973 P Cr. L.J 482 at 506 (para.41), Tariq Azizp'ud'Din and others (2010 Sc-lvllt 1301 at 1332-1333 C (para.22), Anrin ]an v. Director General T & T and others (PLI) 1985 Lahore 81 at 83-84 (paras 6 & 7), Bank of Punjab v. Federation of Pakistan (2000 PTD 2159 at 2160 A), Play Pictures v' Central Board of Ilevenue (2000 cLC 1403 at 1405 A), Crescent Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of I'akistan (2001 PTD 3466 at 3470-3471), Asia Ghee Mills (Pvt) Ltd. v. Assistant Collector (Audit) (200U PTD 1993 at 7997 A), Sir Mir Muhammad v. N.W'F'P' Government (PLD 1981 SC 776), A, Ghani Sayeed v. National Bank of Pakistan (1989 I'l-C (CS) 249), Ghulam Abbas v. Zohra Bibi (PLD 7c)72 SC 337), Nishat Mills Linrited v. Superintendent of Central Excise (PLD 1989 SC 222), Chief Cotnmissioner, I(arachi v. |anril Ahmad (PLD 1961 SC 145), Manzur-ul-Haq v' Controlling Authority (PI,D 1963 SC 652), Muhammad Siddique v. The Market Cornmittee, Tandlianwal.r (1983 SCMIT 785), I'akistan v' Ch. Muharnmad Ahsan (1991 SCMR 2180), Saghir Ahmed v. Province of Punjab (PLD 2004 SC 261), Reference No.l of 188 (PLD 19ti9 SC 75), Commissioner of Income Tax v.

Meclia Network (I'ICL 2007 CL. 1), Muhammad Shahid v. Federation of Pal<istair (PLD 2018 Islamabacl 25il), Tasleern Akhtar v. Pakistan (2010 PLC (ClS)795), Warid Telecom (Private) Linrited v' Federation of Pakistan (2015 SCIvlIt 338), Sui Southern Gas Cornpany Ltd. v, Federation of Pakistan (2018 SCMIf S02), Saleernul Haq v. Palcistan (PLD 1990 Karachi 439) ,Allen Beery & t Co. v. Vivian Bose (AIIi 1960 Punjab 86), Messers l(alimullah & Co. v. The Governrnent of West Pakistan and another (I'>LD -1961 (W.P.) Lahore 321), I']akistan Beverage Ltd. v. Deputy Director (food) ancl another (1984CLC2687), sugar nrills v. Government of I'unjab and otlrers (2001 YLR 2275), Dilshad and 2 otlrels v. Senior Superintendent of Police and 2 others (PLD 2007 Karachi

rs

330), The State of Maharashtra v. shri R.A. Chandawarkar & other (1999 (5) Bor.nCR 519, 1999 Bon.rCR Cri, (1999) 3 BOMLR 394, 1999 CriLJ 4441), 1999 (2) MhLl 650), The State of Maharashtra v. Laxmichand Nagaii ]ain & Ors (Crinrirral Appeal No.l036 oI 2002), |trdgment on the application of Privacy Irrternational) (Appellant) v. Irrvestigatory Powers Tribunal and others (Respondents (Eastel Terrn (2019 UKSC 22), and an unreported iudgment of Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, National Institutional Facilitation Tecl'rnologies (Pvt) Ltd. v. Federal Board of Revenue and others (W.P. No'3995 of 2019).

6.On the other hand learnetl Adclit'ional Attorney General for Pakistan has contencled that although tlre sumrnary for the cleation of the Commission was n'rot,er1 b1, the Intenor Mirristry rather than the Cabinet Division this was a minor ir.regularity which was curecl when the Cabinet approved the creation of the Commissiorr ancl even otherwise under the Rules of Business the Prime Minister harl tl-re pou,el' to relax Il-rles attcl as such non compliance with the Rules of lJusiness was not fatal to the creation of the Commission especially as failure to cor-nply with thern had not causeci any prejut-lice to the petitioners; that it was trot rclcvant that the Con'unission was belateclly notifiecl irr the official Gazette as the Comrnission carne iuto forcc whetr thc sutnnrary for its creation was signecl; that the cornpositiorr of the Commission was in accordance with law as the 7th merlber had been duly notifiecl; that the Comrnission was not biased as it existed of well reputed Governrnerrt ser\/ants who hacl carried out the work of the Cornmissiot-t in a fair anrl tlansparent t-nalllter ancl had procluced a fair and balancecl report which dicl not pre.iudice the petitioners in any way; that the petitioners hacl no right to be heard by the Commission; that the impugnecl Re;rer1 h6L{ not damaged or prcjuclicerl the petitioners and in particular had not clarnagecl their reputations or cligr-rit1' aucl as such the petition be disrnissed. In support of his corrtentions l-re placeel reliance on the cases of Messers Mustafa Inrpex, I(arachi and others v. The Government of Pakistan through secretary Finance, Islamabad and others (l'LD 2t116 Supretne Court 808), Syed Mir Muhamnrad v. N.W.F.P. Government through Chief Secretary (PLD 1981 ,tl Supreure Court 176), A. Chani Sayeed v. National Bank of Pakistan (1989 PLC (C.S.) 249), Ghulam Abbas v. Zohra Bibi and another (PLD'1972 Supreme Court 337), Iteference No,1 of 1988 nrade by tlre President of Pakistan under Article 186 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 75), Messers Nishat Mills Limited v. Superintendent of Central Excise l0

IL

Cilcle II and 3 others (PLD.l989 Supremc Coutt222), Syed Ali Shah v' Abdul Saghir Khan Sherwani and others (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 504), Muhammad Siddique v, the Market Comnrittee, Tandlianwala (1983 SCMR 785). Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others v' Late Ch. Muhammad Ahsan through Legal Heirs and others (1991 SCMR 2180), Commissioner of Income Tax and others v. M/s. Media Network and others (PTCL 2007 CL 1), IJahadur I(han ancl others v. Federation of Pakistan throtrgh Secretary M/o' Finarrce, Islarnabad atrd others (2017 SCMR 2066), Haii Muhammad Ismail Mills Limitect v. Fecleration of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and 2 others (l']l.D 2020 Sinrlh 85), Imran Ahmad I(han Niazi v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistary'Member National Assembly, Prirne Minister's House, Islarnabad and 9 others (I'L-D 20'17 Supreme Court 265), Slackness in the Progress of pending enquiries relating to fake Bank Accounts, etc: Irr the matter of Human rights Case No.39216-G of 20\8 decided on 7th fanuary, 2O1g (2079 SCMR 332), I(halid Qtrreshi and 5 others v. United Bank Liurited, I.I. Chundrigar Road, I(arachi (2001 SCMR 103), ABP Private Linrited aucl anotlrer v. Utrion of lndia and others (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 327),

J

M,/s. Allen Bery and Co, Private Ltd. and another v' Vivian Bose and others (AIIf 1960 Pr-rnjab ti6 (V 47 C 341 (At Delhi), Tasleem Akhter v. Pakistan through Secretary Revenue, Islarnabad and 3 others (2010 PLC (C.S.) 795), Zaibtun Textile Mills Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue and others (PLD 1983 Supretne Coult 35it), Saleem Malik v. Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) and 2 others (l']LD 2008 Suirrerne Court 650), Justice I(hurshid Anwar Birrder and others v. Hederation of Pakistan (Pt,D 2010 Supreure Court 483), Canara Bank v. V'K' Awasthy (2005)f.l Suprerne Court Cases j21), Saleemul Haq and another v' Pal<istan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior Islamabad and 2 others (PLD 1c)90 Karachi 439), Messers Sui Sotrthern Gas Conrpany Ltd. ancl others v.

Federation of Pakistan and others (2018 SCMI{ 802), Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur v. State llank of India (AIR 2005 Suprernc Court 314) ancl Warid Telecom (Pvt.) Lirnited and 4 others v. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority through Chairman (20i5 SCMi< 338).

:r

7.We have heard learnecl counsel for the parties, considered the record and the relevant law including the case law citecl at the bar.

ti. At the- \,ery outset \ /e llote tl'rat any Iorrn of corruPtion, tax evasion, tloney launclering, illegal cartelization neecis to be stamped out with an iron hantl but at the sarne tirne this rnust be done in accorclance with law and by il

l-1

l,ollorn,ir-rg clue process as rnarrtlatt t-l by Article 10(A) of tl-re Constitution so that

every susPect has a fair opportunity to clear his name and position' Only thr.ough the executive following the law, acting in accordance with the law and clue treatir-rg every olle equally before the law ancl jealously guarcling a suspects prcrcess rights and ttignity as manclatecl by Articles 4,25, 10(A) ancl 14 of the Cor-rstitution will the rule of law and goocl governance be enhanced ancl peoples faith ir-r the denrocratic system grow.

9.The first issue before us is whether the imptrgned Notification and impugned Report have been isstred,/established in accordance with law'

10.C)ur starting point is Article 99 of tl-re Constitutlon which provitles as untler;

"99. Corttltrct of husiness of Federnl Got'ernnrcnL (l) All cxecutive actions of the Ferleral Governrtent shall be expressccl to be taken in tl're natne of the Presiclent'

(2)The Fecleral Government shall by rules sPecify the lrannet in which orclers ancl other instruments macle and executecl in the narne of the President shall be au tl-renticated, autl the valirlity of at-ry ortler or instrunlent so authenticated shall not be cluestiot-retl iu auy Ctrurt on the grountl tl-rat it was not rnade or executed by the President'

(3)The Federal Goaernment shall also make rules for the allocation and transaction of its business" .

11 . Article 99 (3) clearly provicles that the Irederal Government shall make rules for tlre allocation ancl transaction of its business. These Rules which were ruade pursuattt to Article 99 (3) are ltnorun as the Rues of Business L973' l? I(ule 3 provides {or the allocatiorr of business ancl is set out as under for ease of reference.

3."Allocation of Business. - (1) The Irederal Secretat iat sh.rll comPrise the Ministlies and Divisions showrr irr Scheclule I.

(2)The Prirne Minister may, whenever necessary, .l constitute a new Milristrv consisting of one or fftore D iv isions.

(3)The business of goaernment shall be distributetl among the Diaisions in the manner indicated in Sclrcdule IL t2

ls

Providetl tllat the ciistributior-r of business or the constitution of tl-re Division rnay be rnodifiecl from time to time by the Prime Ministcr,

( ) The Prime Minister shall allocate amongst his Ministeri the business of Government by assigning several Divisious specifietl irr Scheclule I kr the charge of a Minister:

Provicletl that a Divisiorl or a Ministry not so assigned strall be in the chalge of the Prime Minister:

Provic'letl further that lrlore than one Division may be assigned to a Minister".

13.Accorcling to Schedule II (rzr,hich rleals with Rule 3(3) Distribution of Business arrong Divisions) it is the Cabinet Division at Para 81 which is allocatec-l business concerning the Pakistarr Cornmissions of Inquiry Act, 2O'.l7 uncler which the irnpugnecl Notification establisl-recl tl-re Commission whose report has beer-r irr-rpugnecl at-rcl not the Mirristry of Irrterior.

14.Like.wist the surl]mary to the Cabirret clatetl 10.03.2020 to establish tlre Corrrnissi0rl uncler the Pakistau Cotnmissiorrs of Inquiry Act 2017 has been rnovecl by the Ministry of the Interior and not the Cabinet Division'

15.I l.rus, it is clear that tl.re impugnetl Notification wl.rich established the Commission ancl the impugnecl Ileport which flowetl from the Commission has not been established in accordance with the Rules of Business and as sucl-r the rclevant law. Thc Ilesponcleuts were not able to place any document on recorcl regarrling the relaxatiorr of the l(ules in this respect antl even otherwise goocl reasons for such relaxatiou rnust be given as a relaxation of a Rule cannot be t elaxecl in a whimsical or arbitrary lnantlel as it concerns the exercise of a cliscretion which must be exercise'cl reasonab[1,.

1,6. Initially we were of the view that in the wider interest of accountability wc coulc'l over look this apparently minor legal technicality irr the wicler interest of bringing to book those who rnight have cornmitted illegalities in the sugar I irrtlustry however on a deeper analysis of the Rules of Business and the corsequellce of their non compliance with the same we lrave found that in recent tirlcs tl-rc. Florr'ble Suprrenre Court, aftcr consiclering most o[ the case law citecl lry ihe responclents on this issue has not founcl the uon compliance of the l(ules of business as a minor tecl-uricality which can be over looked but rather a li

I)

trrarldatory lequirenlent that the rules be followed ancl in failing to do so the act would be of no legal effect and this is the latest position of the Supreme Court on this issue. In this respect reliance rs placed on the seminal case of Mttstafa llnpex vs Government of Pakistan (PLD 2016 SC 808) at P'848, 849,871 .rt I'.rr.r's 50,51 .rnc{ t34 whrch are reproclucecl hereuutler' "50 The irttportance of the Rules of Business carutot be unrlerstated utitlrin a cortstittttiornl franteuork. Althonglt, gerrcrally s1tcaLing, it is correct to state that all ntles are bitrding for, artd m relatnt to, the Pouers tlrcreby cotferred on tlrc Exeattitte, this is especiallq so it the case of the Rules o.f Business. Tltc concept ol rules, as is obaions, is subsunrcd in suborclinnte ot delegated legislation. lt is an integral patt tlrcreof. All legrslatiorr rc bintling and sltould be acted upon. 'fltc t-ederul Goucrmrrent does not haz,e tlrc prerogatioe to follou,, or not to.follotL:, legislatiorr, both primanl as u'ell as secondan1 or delegated, itt its discretion. Tlrc autlrcrity to frante rules is uornmlhl conferred by an Act of Parliamett. Iu tlrc cose of the R es o/ Brtsiness this authorittl flows from tlrc Corrstitutiorr itseU. As trotLd tbtn'e, Clnuse (3) of Artrcle 99 utt ics tl utfitdtlorv fiir lfu I arlcrtl Gottcnutrent to rttnka rules tL,ltrt'lt cot,er trpo rclrrtel srrb-fitlds,.firstly, for nnd t relntiott to tlrc nllocntrort of tlu' httsuu'ss o.f tlu' Gottenmrertt nni secondly, for lrnnsnctntg tle snul busntess Tlis clause is to be read as esscntiallv atcillaru to the oue144]1 lrr1, co nceut o the ntle o f lato. Tlrc Cortsttttrtiorr confets rast Pou)ers ot, tlrc Got,enuncnt for tlrc transactiut of exeuttiue business. Tlrcre is tt o reason to suppose, or balieue, tlmt the framers of the Cotrstitution irterded, in disrcgard of the explicit language en4tloqerl, that the Federal Coaernttent could, in its iiscretion, either follou', or tot folloztt, the ptoztisiotts of the IUies ol Busirtr'ss.'flr lrtttrer tt[ ntles rs ns ttut]r bonnd ht1 tlr content tlrcrettf trc (tfillotlL' o1t, ,t 5vllett tlrcrcto. 'I'lrcse firc:bnsrc !rcccpts of i()nslttul tonttl rnterpretntrcrt. To allozu the Executitte to rlcpart lrom thc langmgc of the llules, in its discrction, u,ould be to pernit, antl legitinize, uncottstitutional exeattitte actrons. Qrtttt tnrlcperulttttly of tlu nhore, tlrra rc tut+)le cis('1rttt, s/tcssitts llrc ttttyortnncc o-[ t structttrtrl exarctsc of r scretrottnt't1 pott'er. In tlus cnse llrc drscretronnry executnte Poruers lmt,c nlrenrly heen fettered br1 the Cottshtrttron.'flrc frruntng of rules for tlrts pttrpost' ts rncrtntnhhl ln 't'd to tlrc gurled exerctse of olfit rll poncr, Tlrc . f llrc llules of Business is a snltrttnl cxcrcise intendad to c nhntcc, and nnt alifu, co nceots ofcood so Ttef (l fic c \\'e haue fio doubt tlutt it IS .fit andatorr.l ontl ltittdirt on the Gouerrnnent, anrl sct ho ld, A smrilnr urctp tons tnken ltV tlns Court tn tlrc tnst of Ahtttnd Nnruaz Slmlt (utprn).

I 51 1-ltc nrgunn'nt ts sottrt'tttttcs rtrh,nnrttl, tn order to defeat thc lnttgtrtor of strl,orrlrtrrrtc ltgrslttnttr, llttt rt rs ttrcrclry dtrectortl ntul ttot rrtrurdrrlorry I t is neccssarq to enrplmsize the point that, itt tlrc nonrutl course, tlrcrc is no rensort zuhatsoeaet why tlrc larguage of rules should no t be considered to be manclatory rmless it is ex facie discretionanl. Tlr rules nre franrcd to nclueue i ccrloln oblectittc nnd to nL-lut't'e tlus tt'ttltttt tlu' clmnnels relnttrtg l4

cr

to llre depolu tion nnd Jloto o.f stntutory ntttlnrity. ln the absence o.f conT e llifls rcnso ns to thc contra ru all rules a re, and should be considered to be umndato and bind xns Tlrc burden of ur0o f lies on an uone asser tit s that tlrc nt les in ouestion are directoru anrl not nratt datoru, He ,llust esttl bl ish that there is a sound and DOTUC rful reason whv th eu shoulrl not be cortsidered mandato nt snd b ind in This tt rinciple a plics tpith red oubletl fce, r and in rcla tion to tzoo sets o f rules trs tl cotrstitrttiona ll manrlated rules i e. tlrc Rules o Brrsiness, nnd sacotrdly, rrtlas frn ttrcd uruler fist:nl enacttnants C o n st i ttrti ona Ih1 m arul a t e d tu I es are closely intertatined utitlt the concep t of sood soae rnance for anil in the p tblic interest Allottins a departure there.fr om ruould be detriments I to open and tra nsoarent fornts of gooernattcc If a gotternment departnrent adntits tlnt altlrcuglr it lns oiolated explicit proaisions of the rules, its ttiolation shoul d be condoned bY treating the breach as non-actiortable merely on t he ground of its srtpposedly being direct o ry, th en sureht-SCLi p uE-! rtgEt! p tr s arise in relation to the sood th of the deoartment. ln enclr nnrl et,e ry cnse tlv yretmtptiotr of lmo ruo rild be tlnt the rules nre rturnrlnlory nnd sltould be obsen'cd nttd.ftill owed. If, and onlY if, a conryellittg public futerest is cstablishe d as a reasotr for non- compliance ruitlt the ntles i.e. other than inadttertence, or negligence, or incornpetence then, and o nly tlrcry can the court consider ruhetlrcr or tlot to condon e the breach in the obseruance of the rules.

84.We may no'w sumnwrize our cortclusiotts:-

(i)The Rules of Business, 197i are binditrs ott tlrc Goaernment and n fnihtre to fo llout tlrcm toou ld lead to an order lackins aflr t lestl o alidittr (bolcl aclcletl)

77.In this case the Respondents have not been able to put forward or establish arry compelling reason for non-cornpliance with the Rules which are ntandatory in nature (especially as iuarlverterrce or negligerrce or incompetence will not suffice as an excuse even when the matter is of compelling public interest) anc-l following thern complies with the concept of good and transparent govcl.nance antl soliclifies the rule of law. It is also settled by now that when a rnatter is to be clone in accorclauce with law iu a certain lrlannel then such matter rnust be carriecl out in that lnanner which was not cloue in this case anci as sucl1 the impugnecl Notification is struck clown as lraving no legal effect and in turn the irnpugnecl Report which flowecl frorn the impugned Notification is also / struck tlowrr arrcl of no legat effect ancl likewise the so called action matrix as rtrr'ntioned earlier in tlris order aud letters written by the Advisel to various orgarrizations which agairr flowerl frorn the impugned Report in respect of the petitiorrers.

i5

2l

In addition, we also find.rs follows

Ilelated publication of the establishment of the commission in the official Gazette.

18.It app.rea1.5 that the ob;cct of the notificahon of certain instruments tn the ofhcr.rl C.-rzette rs to grrre thern legal valiclitl' ancl give tl're general public ancl in particular those r,r,hom the instrurnents may effect notice of the same so that such Persolls rl ay takc such steprs whrch they nlay dcel-n appropriate in respect of the tttstttttltt'lrt by cxamPle challcngrrrg it in a coult r'r I law 7() Under S.3, 3(2) ancl 10 of the Pakistan Cornmission of Inquiry Act 20L7 ,uvhrclr art set out belor.v for ease of t'c'ferctrce if .r Comrnission was Constituted by thc- l.erler.rl GoveLnrnent thcn rt was lnandatory Ior that Commission to be rrt'rtrfrccl in tl-re "offrcial Gazette" fttttn a prlatn reatling of those sectrons which rcqulres t-to interprctation Iu thts case thc ctlnstitrrtion of the Commtssion was rrot publrshecl rrr the off rcral Gazette untrl ()6 07.2Q2O which was after thc Cotntrrtsstou hatl subrnrttecl the rmpugnetl Report on 27.05 '2020 and as such the Petlttonels hacl uo noticc that the Conltnisslon hacl COme lnto existence and

ther ef or.e tlrrl uot have the opportunity hr challenge rts creation if they so desrred unttl after the Conuntsston hacl sutrtntttecl lts rePort. Secttou 3(1)(2) and sectlon tt)(b) ot the Act ;:rovrde as follo',vs'

3.Constittrtion of Conrmission of Inquiry'- (1) Wlrenever tt is erpctltcut t<l conc]uct .ln inqtllrY into auy rlefinrte rnatter of puLrlrc importance, the Federal Government rnar', by notification in the official Gazette, constrtute a Commisslon of Inqurly in accordance with the Lrr()v sr()t1s of this Act r

(2)'fl-re I etlelal Coverntncttt shalt, by Notification in the official Gazette, .rpPolrlt the members of tl-re Cotnr-t-ttsstort ('lrtLl whel'e ttrore thatt olle fflelrber are so apporntecl, the Ii-ccler:al GoveLnntetrt shall clesignate one of the rnerlbers to bc the Chatrl.natr of thc Commtssion

10.Additional powers of the Commission'- In case tlre specifrc rratute of the iucluiry so requires, the Federal ,l Govertrrnent rnay, by notification in the official Gazette, ccrnfer the following .rtldihonal Powe l's on the Comrnissiou for the ptrr poses o[ thts Act, nanrell' -

(a)

I

l6

(b)power to constitute special teams, consisting of officers from the execttlive atrthorities and experts in specific fields, for the purposes of assisting the Conimission in conducting an inquiry' The special teanrs shall have sttch powers as may be prescribed'

20.lt is an atlmitted position that tl.re Iequisite notification in the case of the constiLution of the Commission u,as macle after the impugned Report haci been subr-r-tittec'l wheleas the notification for the special teams made by the Cor-nmission to aSSiSt it was never nrade. We have reviewed the case law citecl by the responclents on this issue and find that in most cases where the non notificatiot-t ot' belatecl notification in the official Gazette had been conclonetl by the court related to cases where the Government's failure to notify was benefitir-rg itself to the detriment of others and as such are distinguishable from the present case where the non notification ir-r the Gazette is only prejudicing the pretitiorrr.rs. In the case of Government of Sindh V Messrs Khan Ginners (Private) Limitecl (PLD 2011 P.347) it was helcl by the Supreme Court that a notificatiorr coulcl not be termed as lawful unless and until notifiecl in the official gaz-ette at P.349 in the following terms.

"Tlrc cnse of Muhornntnd Sulennn nnd others u. Abdul Gluni PLD 1978 SC 790 tlvorps sufficient light on tlrc legnl position that issuance of a Notificatiort is ttot of any significance or legal importance till it is published in an official Gazette' AJcorditg to section 2(41) of the General Clauses Act, 7956 a 'N oti.fication' means a N oti/icatiotr published under proper authority in an olficial Gazette. In this aieu; of the fiattet before its publication in the official Gazette the Notification releaant to the present appeals could not eaen he lawfully tenned as a Notificcttion" .(hold ndded)

21.I.,ikewise in tl.re case of Muhammed Osman Ghanni V M'Ahmed (I'LD 7967 Dacca 7it6) it was helcl as utrcler at P.787 , " . . .tt is, thereforc, oltt,iotts tlutt tlrc nppointnrcnt of an Election Trihunnl must be ttnrle by notificntion in tfu o.ffrcinl Cnzetta nnd itr rto otlrcr nanner' ln tlrc present cnse, tlre nforesnid notification dnted the 9th of July 1965 nppointing Arlditionnl Deputy Cottrtttrssiotrer (General), Bnknrgnni to be nn Election Tributtrtl, nttltougi tlntctl thc 9tt' o.f lttly 1965, runs puhlishecl in tlrc o.ffcinl Onzette for the first tinre on tlrc 26tl'o.f March 1966, i.e., long nfter Mr. M' I Alnnad, Additbnnl Dc1ttrtrl Conmtissiorcr (Genernl), Bnkargnni lmd lenrd tttd rlisltLtscd of tltt' Eltctiott L'nse. ln pieu'of tlrc snid notifcntiott, Mr. M' Alrnrcd, Arldittonnl Deputtl Comntissroner (Genernl), Bnkargnni runs '1966 and not cottstttrrted nn Election 'f ribwml only otr tlrc 26th o.f Mnrclr enrlier nnd tlrcre.fore lr lnd tto jurisdiction to try tlrc Election Cnse on tlw 75tt, of Jnnunry 1966."

t7

a

22.'fhe Commission thet'efore only legally came into being when it was notifiecl ancl published in the official Gazette on 06.07.2020.Thus from 16-03.2020 when tlre Cornmission was establisl.red by the impugned Notification it had no lcgal authority to carry out its terms of reference ancl submit the impugnecl Ileport u,hich it clic{ on 21.05.2020 before its publication in the official Gazette arrtl as such legally the Commission never came into existence alrtl any work r,vhich it carriecl out inclucling its irnpugned report was without lawful authority antl canrtot be reliecl upon.

23.At the earliest, in our view, the Cotnmission came into effect on 06.07.2020 when it was notifiecl in the official cazette. However, by this time the Commission [rac1 already subrnittec] its repolt to the Cabinet on 21.05.2020 and accortling to S. 3(6) of the Pakistan Cotnmissions of Inquiry Act 2017 the Cor-nnrission had alreacly becor-ne futtcltts officio ancl as such tl-re impugned Ileport har.l no legal effect on this score as well as the Commission had ceased to exist (if it hacl ever legally existecl) even prior to its legal notification which blought it into legal existence. S.3 (6) provides as under;

"The Commission shall cease to exist on the conclusion of the Irrcluily contluctecl by it ancl submission of Final Report in respect theleof to the Fedelal Government'"

The corrrposition of the Conrnrission.

24.The Ministry of Interior (not the Cabinet Division) moved a summary to the Cabinet on'10.03.20 for the Constitution of a Commission to Probe into the incre ase in sugar prices as set out below;

"NO.5/'t4/2020-FtA

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

MINISTRY OF INTERIOR

SUMMARY FOR TFIE CABINET

Subject: CONSTITUTION OF INOUIRY COMMISSION TO

PROBE INTO THE INCREASE IN SUGAR PRICE'

In orcler to probe into the iucrease of sugar Price the following Committee was constitutecl by the Prirne Minister of Pakistan (Annex-I).

i)Dilector Gerrelal, FIA Convener

ii)BS20/21 Representzrtive of IB not belorv Member I iii) Director Ceneral, Anti-Corruption, Puniab Member

2.The Committee was taskerl to iclentify ancl fix resPonsibility, if any, on anv irrdiviclual/of ficer f organization, including any Purported benefit to a private party, besides suggesting a way forward for future course of action.

3.The Director Gencral, FIA submittecl a preliminary report wherein the Cornrnittee tluring the course of proceec{ings has collected informatiotl

I8

2q

fronr rliffelent Fec{eral aud l)rovincial Govcrntnent Departments' Pakistan to sugar t-nills Associatiorr ancl other stakeholders for providing answers thJquestions on the TORs of the Corrrnittee (Annex'II) 4. The Director General f l A suggestecl tirat on the basis of infonnation collecterl frotn tl-tc tlifference soufces the Committee was able to form a reasonable picture of the possible ways in which the lnalpractices in sugar ,".to..un be used to hide the real production and porribl" ways of concealing of the record of the sales' In order to ascertain the factors .""1rotl.ibl" for manipulation of the market price further velification is reqr'rirecl through forensic audit and physical stock taking of few of selected n'rills.

5.lt.t ot tlcr to catt'r1' out this exercise as proposecl by DG IiIA a Conrnlission of lnquiry ma)/ be constitutecl under Pakistan Commissions of Inquir.y Act, 20i7 (Annex_III) and irr terms of section 3 of Pakistan Conrmisslons of Inquirv Acl,2077 it will consist of the following members:

i)Director Gerreral, FiA Chairman

ii)DilectorGcuet'alAnti-CorruptionEstablishment punjab Member'

iii)I{epicsentati','e of lB r.rot belou' BS-20/21 Member iu) Ilepresentative of SECI' 83-20 /27 or equivalerit officel Member

v)i{epresentative of State Bank of Pakistan US-ZO 1Zt or ctl.rivalerrt off iccr Member Ilepresentative of FBR BS-20 /21' "i) or equivaient of ficel Member

(Mentbers at Sr. No.iii to vi till Lre nominated by the head of respective departments' 6. This Commission will also be empowerecl under section 10(b) of tl.re Act ibitl to constitute special teams consisting of officers from executiVe authorities and experts iu specific fields, for the purposes of assisting the Cornmissiou in conclucting arr inquiry'

7.'ihe tenns of Iteference (a to p) of the Commission are at Annex-IV' t'1. Approval of tl-re Cabinet is solicitetl for the ProPosals contained at P.rLls5,6&7above.

g. Minister ftx Intel'ior has seen ancl authorized submission of the surnrnarv to the Cabinet 5l'l/-

(YOUSUF NASEEM KHOKHAR)

SecretarY

25.The Corrstitution of tl-re Cotntnission and its members were approved by the cabinet by a decision datecl 10.03.2020 according to learned Additional Attorney General for Pakistan which leacl to the creation of the Commission.

26.As noted in the above referretl sulnmary at Para 5, 06 persons from particular organizations with particular seniority were to be members of tl-re Corlntission. One of tlre Members rvas stated to be a representative of the State Ilank of Irakistan (SBP) of grade. I3S 20f 27. Httwevr:r, the record reveals that a Mr' Majic.l Hussain Chaudhr.y, Joint l)irector, sBI, of gracle 19 was appointecl as a rnernber of the Comr]rissiorr without Cabinet approval contraly to the summary..

l9

z{

29.At first instance it woulcl apPear that the test for bias of any member of the thc Cor-nmission has not been satisfiecl however when we deeply considered clocur-nents l-rcfore us in a holistic manner r,r,e firrcl that the test has been satisfiecl at least in respect of 3 members of the Commission and strike down the Corlnrissiotr report on a(tcount oi bias.

30.Ir-r r.naking this finrling u,C cor-rsic]er that the starting point is the establishrnent of an Inquirv Committee to probe the increase in sugar prices vide a letter frorn the Prirne Ministers olfice (tateLl 20-02-2020. we are uncertain on u,l-rat legal basis this inquirv Couunittee n'as createtl or the powers which it woultl lrave but never the less set out the Prir-tle Mirristers letter for ease of reference.

" I)RIME MIN ISTER'S OFFICE

ISI,N MABAT)

5ub)cct IN UII{Y COTUMITTLL TO PR OBE THE INCREASE IN

SUGAR PRICE

l-he PrilTre Minister has been pleasecl to constitute the following I Comrnittc.e to probe the recerrt iltcrcase in sugar plices:

i)Director General, FIA Convener

ii)Represerrtative o[ lB not below BS-20 / 21 Member iii) Directol Ceneral. Anti Corruption, Punjab Member "I'he Couvener may co-oPt any other member -l

2.he irrquiry report shall, inter alia, irrclucle:

a) Whether the procluction, this year, was low as compared to past years? Was low procluction the primarv reason for increase in prices?

t) Was the rninitnum suPPort price sufficient?

c) Dicl the Mills purchase sttgarcarle at exorbitantly higher prices than the rninitnum support price? If yes, then reasons thereol';

ci) Reasons for rnills not pulchasing sugarcane, for a limitecl peliotl of a few weeks, from the' farmers arrci its impact, if r1nv, on sugar prices;

e) llasis for cleterrninatiot-t of trx-Mitl price? I{easons for increase in Ex-Mill price;

f) Market mani;rulatiorr /cartelization by sugar rnills, if any; g) Iurl-:ac t of forwarcl contracts ol1 tl'le Prices of sugar and any malaficle is it'rvolvecl;

l.) Whc'tlrel Inalgirrs betweetr [ix-Mill arrel retail prices ) itrcreaset{, cotnpared to previous years, or otl-rerwise. If yes, thereof anrl poterrtial bene'ficiaries;

i)Impact of tax increase (nl sugar Pnces at Ex-Mill / Retail lcvel;

j) Floalcling at whole sale/Retail level ancl within sugar rnills vis-?r-vis strrk of larst year h

2l

z1

k) Was t'xport of sug.rr;ustrfreclT An,v subsrciy Srven on exPort antl its tt.t-tp.-tct, wltll Potelltl.ll Lrc ncf Ici.'lrlcs, I) Basis for tleten-ntnation of reLril prrce of sugar rn) Rolc of vat'ious stakeholtlcrs, tnclutl rng governlnent rnstrtutlons and prtvate sector in lncrease in sugar prlces, rncltttltng trrnell, / prevetrttvc / prc-emptlvc rt:mec1t.rl lrleasLlr('s to cttutrol sttgar Prices .rtr.l tn.rlafttle, if an1', of 'rny sta[<eholder, a rrrl, n) Any other tssttt', cleemetl appropriate, relatecl to the increase u1 rccent sugal prices, 3 The Comnrittee shall also identify and fix responsibility, if any, on any irrrlivirltral / officer f organization / including any purPorted benefit to a priv.rte p.rrt1" besides srrggesting a way forw.rrd for future course of action. 4 Ihc .rLror,c rrrtluiry shall br. cornpletctl ancl report shalI be submittctl to the Pnmc Mirrrster wrthrn a fortnrght (5th March, 2020) posrtively.

S.1/ -

(lr4 uhammad Azam l(han) Sl'cret.rrt' [o t]re I)t itnt- N'lrlrister''

3l I t c.rn be seen fi.ortr the abtt,,,t that tl're committee was to col-lsist of 3 rrrcnrL.,cr.s by clcsrgnatror-r (r) IIC FIA (Mr Wajrcl Zia) as convener (ri) lie f,1e5c111d;, t'e ot IIJ not bt-low, BS 20/27 (NIr Nh' Ahrnctl l(amal) antl DG ACE l'un1.rLr (N'lr Mr.Gohar Nalees) rvith spectfic terms of reference ll Ihc Comn'rittee set.rbout rts t.rsk.rnrl on 09 ()3 2020 fis c()nvener Mr Walitl lrr q,r6tr-, t6 the Soclct.rry ttr tht' ['rr1rt' I\'lttttstct'.ls ts sc[ 3ut be'lcn'r';

OFI;ICL OF fl IIi DIRECl OIi GIrl\"EItAL T-IIDERAL INVI rSl'ICATION ACLNCY IST,N iVIN I]D N tr IrSl I)G/ Itl A / 2O2l) / 417 Da ted,09.03.2020

lo.

f he Secretarl, t() lrr'lrne Mtnrster, [)rrrrrt' Mrrrrstt,r's Of f rcc, IsI.r rn.rt,a tl

Sublcct INQUIRY COMM ITTEE TO PROBE THE INCREASE IN

SUCAR PRICES

llefcreucc ['Lttttc Nlrtrtster's of[ice Islamabacl vide [-,etter tl.-o755/A/N4/St'Nl/2020 tl.rtetl 2() l't2.2020 aucl Letter No.930/M/SPM/2020 A clatcd 05.03.2020 orr.rbove notr'rl sLrbicct 2 the rtrqutrl' Commtttee clLrrrng the coulse of proceeclings has ctrllt'cteei rntolmatron fror-n tlrftererrt Fetleral ancl Provincial Covernment I )o p.r ltt-t tc'rr ts, I'.rkistarr sug.rr r-nrlls Asstrci.rtittn autl othcr stakcholtler for l',r'ovrrlrng allsrvers to the tlrestrorls nl the'l'ORs, 3 'J'hc irrfom-ratron collecic.cl tl-rus far l'eveals that the whole tufolnration system usecl for rlecrsron makrng bv the Government Department ls totallv tle pr,nrlellt on th(. inforur.rtror.r lrrovrtlcel bv thc sugar mrlls. 'Il-ris inclucles

ZB

informatiou about tl-re pricir-rg of Sugarcane, the amouut of sugarcane crushecl' recovely ratio, the sugai P1'oclucec.l, sugal solcl, Iifted and pleclged etc' 4. The inquiry Committee has been able to form a reasonable picttrre of the possibi" *"yr in which the malpractices in sugar sector can be i secl to hide tlie real procluction and possible off the record sales. According to sonre source reporti, the strpply of srga, is controlled by few sugar mills for rnanipulation of tlre market sale price.

5.lrurthcr verification of tl-rcsc rePorts can only be rnade through Iror.errsic Aucjit arrcl ph1,si.u, stocktakir-lg of a few selected rnills by a tealn of t-.xperts frorn sECP, FBR, Stut" Bar-rk of Pakistan and others concluctecl on site to - r..ePol'ts on the follou'ing tnatters:out malpractices of anal\,ze atrrl prrspslc a) Veiity the salcs of sugar to fintl hoarcling & r-rranipu la tiorr of sup-rply to the market to rrra x irn izc prof itce rir rg.

b) Physictrl verification of stock to finci whether there is atty excess / shortage of stock as shown in the books arrtl the r,erificatiou oi the getruineuess of the sale recorcl.

6.'lhe Forensic Audit teams h'oulc1 be assisted by the FBR' State Bank of Pakistan, FIA, ACIr Punjab officers. It is estirnatetl that at least 6 such tearns \r,oultl Lrc requlrecl t() carr.V out thc rletailecl fot'ensic audit of largest players in ther sugar mills Iurlustry. Although this exercise would take considerable ,rlorlp,r*"r & time, it woultl be able to provide credible evidence to establish any lvrong doi ngs /mani pu I ation.

7.It ii suggesiecl that the existirrg it-rquiry Cornmittee may be further t_.xparrtlecl to inclucle i Grade 21 or equivalent officers of SECP, FBR and State 'l'ORs at para 5(a) anci (b) also assigned to it.

Bar-rl< ()f I,akistan w,ith the aclclitional

8.'l'he irrquirv Cotlmittee feels that in orcler to carry out on site folensic auelit ancl cleploy techuical teams to carry out this exercise, the legal cover would also be required to be provided' Subrnitted for favor of consicleratiou, please'

(Wajid Zia), PSP Director Gerreral FIA"

33.I)ursuant to tl-ris letter a sulrlmarv was tnoved by the Ministry of Interior lvhich leacl to the creatiorr of the Comurissiot1 on 16.03.2020 in Mr. Zia's own worcls, to give legal cover to the actions of the Committee, and thus the Conrrnittee t'netnbeLs n,ere itt effect made a Part of the Commission'

34.Irrour Mr.Zia's letter it appears to us that the Committee had alreac{y thr.ough there investigations macle up its mincl tl-rat there was malpractice in the sugat sector antl that he wanteci to further expose this' He cloes not aPPear to be ) ir-rter.estetl irr seeking any exculpatory material whicl-r n-ray exonerate the sugar Mills n,hich also lrrings the fairt-ress of thc Comtlission into question Namely, dicl they r.r,ish to pul.sue a fair in'n,estigation or were they out to fix sugar mill owners?

!t

L\

35 fhe Conrnrission cotnprist-'tl the following 6 members;

(i)Mr.Wajicl 7'ia DG FIA as Chainnan-----already a member of the Cotnmittee

(ii)Mr.Gohar Nafces DG ACE Punjab------already a member of the Committee

(iii)Mr'.Ahmed l(an.ral DDG Iti------already a member of the Committee (iv; Mr. Bilal Ilasool f1D (SIJCI'])------correctly appointecl as per approved sumlnal'y (") fra..fvlu;ia Hussain Chauc{hrv Joint Director SBP------ not appointed in accordance with the approved summary and already found by us to be a stranger to the Conrmission whose contribution is to be igr-rored.

(u i) Mr.tlashirullah l(han D(1, Directolurte Ceneral of Intelligence ancl lnvestigation IrBR Islarnabad--- correctly appointed as Per approvecl surrllnarv

( r'ii) l.ater ;rs tliscusserl .rborre a 7rh tneurber Ctll. Muhammed Faisal Gul r.r,as illegally'usap1-rointecl to the Commission who has already fourrcl by to be a stranger to the Commission whose contribution is to be ignored.

36.The tenns of reference of the Comrnission were set out in S.3 of the Notification of the Commission as uuder;

THE GAZEmE OF PAKISTAN, EXTRA, JULv 6,2020 [PART II]

3.Tlre followirrg shall be the Terrns of Reference (ToRs) of the Commission:-

a. Whethet the production, this year, was low as compared to past years? Was low proc'luction the primary reason for irrcrease in prices?

b) Was the urinimutn supPort price sufficient? c) Did the Mills purchase sugarcane at exorbitantly higher prices than tl're miuitnum support price? If yes, then reasons thereof;

rt) Ilt'asotts for rnills not purchasit-tg sugarcane, ftlr a limitec'l perioel of a few rryeeks, from the fanners ancl its impact, if ar1y, ol1 sugar prices;

e) llasis for cleterminatiort of Ex-Mill price? Reasons for ir-rcLeast-. ir-r fix-Mill plice;

{) Malket manipulatiou /cartelization by sugar mills, if any; g) lrnpact of fot'warcl colltracts on the Prices of sugar and t arry nra [afitle is invtrlvetl;

h) Whether tnargius lretween Iix-Mill and retail prices increaserl, cot-upared to previous years, or otherwise. If yes, thereof ancl potential beneficiaries;

i)Impact of tax increast'on sugar prices at Ex-Mill / Retail level;

3o

l) Hoarcling at whole sale/ Itetail level antl within sugar mills v is-ir-v is stock of last yea r';

k) Was export of sugar justifiecl? Any subsic-ly given on export ancl its impact, with potential berreficiaries;

l) Basis for cleterutination of retail price of sugar.

nr) Rolc of various stakeholdcrs, inclucling Sovernlnent institutiorrs ancl private sector it-l increase in sugar prices, inclucling tirnely / preventive / pre-emptive rerreclial rTleasures to control sugar pr ices aI-rc-l rnalaficle, if any, of any stakelroltler';

n) Verification of the sale of sugal to find out malpractices of hoarcling & r-narripulatiou of supply to the market to maximize Profiteering' o) Physicai ver ification of stock to firrcl whether there is any excess / shortage of stock as shown in the books ancl the verification of the genuineness of the sale record; atlcl p) ihe role of Competition Commission of Irakistan in this crises; q) IJenatri transactions arrcl profits (approx) earnecl during the sugar cri si s;

r) rhe Commission shall subn-rit its report to the Prime Minister within forty (40) clays aftet'issuance of this notification' s) Arry other issue, tleet.tretl appropriate, relatecl to the increase in reccnt sugat' prices;

37.Importantly and significantly, on the, establislrment of the Commission the Crrrnrnittee rlirl not ceasc to exist but contirrueel its work and on 24.03.2020 subrnittecl a report to the Prir-ne Ministel which once again caste asPersiol-ls ol-l the petitionet s ancl inc'licated that the 3 Committee members (now also Cornmission nrenrbers) hacl alreacly made up their minds that the Petitioners antl othtr Sugar Mill Ot{ners harl cot.Ilrnittetl illegalities ancl the only issue was to !vh.rt cx tcn t

38.For instance, in its report the Conrmittee accused the sugar mills, inter crlio, f<tr ptrrchasing su8arcane off the books and for selling sugar off the books u{eport, page, 95, para. 21. lt accused them of price nranipulation [Report, page, 105, para, 22, page 109, para. 251. "maior tax eoasion' [Report, page, 113, paa. 271, market manipulation and cartelisation [Report, page' para 25 (iii), page.'177,para.31, page. 119, para. 37l,"Satta" [Report, page'121, para. 41, page. 123 para. 42 lii), " hoarding" [Report, page. 129, para' 49] and strbsidy malriptrlation IReport, pages. 135, para. 57], It recommended a .} 'cracLdoutn'on the sugar rnills IReport, page.'1,41, para.69l.

39.As such out of the 6 Men-rbers of the Cornrr1ission in our view three of tlrer.n (the existing Committee members Mr.Wajicl Zia DG FlA, Mr. Gohar Nafees l)G ACE Puniab ancl Mr. Ahmed Karnal DDG IB) had through Mr.Zia's t

3l

allove referrecl lettet and the Committee report already made up their rninds that the petitioners and otl-rer sugar mill owners hacl committetl illegalities and find that when the above coutext is consicleretl a reasonable man when facecl with the above context ancl facts woulcl have an apprehension that the above three mernbers of the Corn'missio,r harl a real likely hood of bias against the petitioners ancl other sugar rnill owlters. Thus we find that that 50% of the Cornmission was biasecl arrrJ two out of the remaining four members of the Cornnrissiot-t were strangers to tl-re Cot-nmissiotr having been illegally appointecl ancl as such only 2 rnembers out of the 7 lTletnbers o[ the Commission remaitr n,ho can be safely rclieel uporr as trc'ing unbiasecl arrtl legally aPpointed'

40.It is important to stress here that the 3 rnembers may not be actually biasecl but tlre test is as to what trre consider n rensonnble ,nan lloltld npPrehend bnsed ort llv nhot,e test tolten nll llte ttbot,e fncts toerc plnced hefore hirrr. The fact that some persolts closely associatecl with the Covernmeut wele also included in the report woulel not rerluce such apprel-rension in tlre mincls of a reasouable man especially as sorrte of those associates appear now to L-re out of favour with the Government anrl lett l'akistan sholtly aftel tl-re Commission's lePort was publishecl without hinrllance bv the Cclvernment.

41.In terrns of bias the \4,ay in rvl-rich the Commission report was handlecl also iu c>ur view raises seriotts questions abotrt the bona fides of the Government keeping in view the generally slow and bureaucratic manner in which Govemrnents tenci t() operate in that the Commission's report of around 350 pages was pr.esentecl to the Government on 27.05.2020, all around 350 pages rvere consicleled and cligestetl on the same tlay by the Ac{viser, a Cabinet lreetit'tg was callecl on the same clay, a cletailetl presentation by the Adviser on acctluntabilitv was tnatle ttl tl-re Cabinet otr the impugned Report the same day antl the Cabirrct approverl Lroth thc impugned Report ancl the clrafting of the action platl on the saue tlal' which leacls us to the only reagonable inference tl'rat the Aclviser was in contact with the Comtnission throughout its proceedings, ruray have influencecl them ancl their fintlilgs ancl may have even received au aclvarrce copy of the ir-npggnerl fleport as the above pace of events on the same clav cloes rlot seem possible whilst also keeping in view that this whole Cornmissiotr was establishecl by virtue of sut-utnaries by the Ministry of Interior, ostensibly heac{ec1 by the Adviset'aud unrler which Ministry the FIA also falls untlel ancl the DG FIA leatl both the, Clomnrittee and tlle Commission bypassiug tlre C-abirret [)ivisiou. 'fhe impressiory'perception is thus createcl in our rrinds that

I,

3Z

the master r-nincl behincl the ilrpugnecl Report which was aimed to disparage certain organizatious incluclir-rg thc pctitiorre'rs was the Aclviser which imprcssiodperceptiott is fulther fortifiecl by the action plan which he drew up and the letters which he sent to the heads of various organizations with a copy of the report which we will conre to later in this order'

42.Again, irnportantly and significantly the terms of reference of the Comrnittee when compared with the terms of reference of the commission are alnrost iclentical with only 4 extra terms of reference being added for the Comnrission ancl as such the Committee, 50'h of whom made up the Commissiorr had in effect already made up their minds that the petitioners antl other.sugar rnill owners hacl cornrnittecl illegalities ancl their sole concern was to clig up further nraterial against them for their re'port.

43.Irr this respect reliance is placed on a clecision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy couusel in the case of Mitchell V Georges (2015 SCMR 1020) which is tir]ite sirnilar to this cast: wlrereby it was helci that in effect where a ot"le man Conrrnissiorr of Inquiry hacl alreacly disclosed his mind through an interim report lre wouk] not be in a position to impartially continue with the inquiry which hclri as uuc]er at Pat'a 33 antl 34.

"33--The Board lus reached the conclusion that, contrary to the conclusiorrs of the rcurts ltelou, the lnterim Report utas explessed in suclir terms tlmt the fair-minded and irrformed obsenter, hatting considered the facts, tttould conclude tlnt tlrcre utas a rea.l possibilitq that the respondent uas biased strch tlmt he tt,ould not approaclr the renainder of tlrc lnquirrl utith an open nrind or, Put another way, that he wouli not conduct an impartial luquiry, so far as tlrc cottthtct of the appetlant is concented. In reaching that conclttsiotr the lloard lms cottsidered the releoant context' lt nytprecinlLts tlrnt the tcsltondenl is ttot presiding ouer nduersnrinl ltroccerlirtgs hrtl Lx,ar ntr lttLyiry, tkxpeter, tlrc lnqutry ittz'olPes n tlatnilL'd cinmirttttiott of tltr conduct of tlrc nppellnnt (nntong otlrcrs) o't)er i cottsiderfile pcriod nnd botlt tlu Snlnnn letter nnd tlrc Interinr Report nnke it clear thnt the nppellant .fn':es seriorts nllc gn tion s oi i n4rropr ic ty. "

;; ;,:,;;, ; ;,,, o, i,u f o,, t px r?: ;' :;:,';,r !r':';7I :;ii:;, that tuoulrl anlouttt to achutl bias, As alreadtl stated, tlrc rlrtcsliorr is ( tni is <ntltl zoltctlrcr the fair-minded nnd informcd obseraer, hnoing consideted the facts, tooultl corrclude that there u)as a real possibilittl that the

ttlspofl(lent was biased such tlwt he would not approach the remainder ol the lnEiry with an open mind." (bold added)

44.Thus, t-rasecl on the abovc tliscussion the impugnecl Report is of no legal e.ffect basecl on our finriing that tlrt:re ,,vas a real likelihoocl that the Commission was biasccl against the petitionels and others. Justice rnust not only Lre c.lone but it must also be seen to being c'lone.

Denial of the Opportunity to be heard.

45.The Cornrnission irr its report has macle clamaging and clisparaging finrlirrgs against tl-re petitioners ancl other sugar Millers. For example, at typed I'.37 [';rr.r's 100, 123, 13ti antl 143 of the lcpor t it is writtcn as uncler;

"100. As c{iscussetl earlier', that the sugar mills have been charging margins after adding the sales tax which resulted in ertra charging of lts.1 .02 per kg This is a da Ii ht robbe fronr the oockets of the seneral oublic. to t he tune of Rs.5.2 billio n everv vear. The Governlnent ql av direct the FII R to recover this heft v amount b v ascerta inins the additional profits thus made b v each susar mill in the past 1.23." Satla" is the speculativc'salc aucl has become commoll practice itr sugar tnarktrt thrctuglrout Pakistan No actual investtnent or sale or lifting of sugar is involved irr SATTA' It is sirnply a fornr of gambling."

"138 .Apart frorn gerruine sale to registered corporate users, sugar brokers are abusing forward contracts to cover the speculative "Satta" sales. 'The susar mills are not only facilitatine such specttlative sales b y providing storage spaces for Ionger durations and increasing ex-nrill prices without any iustification but they are also malor beneficiaries of " Satta" through aclvance Payments, forfeiture of advance against strclr forward contracts in cases of non-lifting qldlhrough artificiallyincrease<lsugar prices,"

"743. Till the time new le sl sI.rtion is brousht . the I'rovincial Governntent should take st rict action accordin g to tlre existins laws to control "Satta". The information about the place and persons involved in this speculation business is available with the Special Branch and Intelligence Agerrcies.

, Other such instauces of disparaging comments are found in the report at S.2 pages 483 to 601 of the Report of the Conrmission of tnquiry. It found inPut tax credit "availed by the mills" as ab initio " inadmissible" and recoaerable" IReport para.533, page 463]. Income tax assessments already nradc were declared to be "etoneous" and "yrcjrtdicial to thc interests of tlrc reaenue" and t

3q

recomnrencled " contplete audit of Tax affairs" lReport, pages 521, 597, 575 and 599]; "aurlit of zoithholding taxes" IReport, page. 537].

46.lntt'restinglv, thc rr.porl castigates the involvement of the sugar inclustry auri thc Pc.titioners in Satta which is a form of forward trading which is cor-nr]ronly arrtl 6lloballv usr.'(l lor international commercial business transactions but concedes that tlrere is no Iaw against it in Pakistan yet the suggestion is at Irara 143 as sc.t out aborre is tl-rat thc sugar inclustry shoulcl be taken to task for this trtlrerwise legal transactron irr I)akistan uncler tro apparent law.

47.lVe clisagree rvith the resporrtlent's contention that the petitioners had no right to be hearcl by the Comrlission before the report was filralizecl in wlrich such higl'rly riarnaging c()n1nt('nts, observations, fintlings, recommenclations against the. petitioners antl othcr sugar Mill owllers were made. In our view it was incrrnrbent for the (lonrmissiorr kr give eaclr ancl every petitioner and Sugar Mitler tl're opportunitv of berng hearcl inclucling the petitioners before making sr-rch highly tlamagirrE5 comments, <ltrscrvations, findirrgs, recommenc'lations ag;rinst the petitiouet's atrd other strgar Mill owners in its report 4iJ. It is also arr aclnrittecl fact that so lhr as the petitioners were concernecl ttone of their officels were given the opportunity to be heard by the Comrnissiotr or confr.ontecl witl-r any tlocumc.r]t or given any chance to put forward their Lr()sition through rlocutnerrts or'otlrr:rwisc ir-r rcspect to the Cornrnission in trrc{er to rlisprove any allegatir>1 r'pacle against them or tl-re industry As such they were contlt rnrretl unlrearcl by aciverse commeltts l-reing made against the entire Sugar intlustrv (r^,,hich incluclecj tl-rerl) whrch is contrary to tlre well settled principle of audi alterarn partem wl-rich is a rlue proccss rigl-rt guaranteetl uncler Alticle 10(A) of thc Corrstitution anrl is so settled by now that it hardly neecis any further elalroration. Irr fact so irnportant is this right that even if a statute eloes not expressly proviclc thc. right to be hcartl it is impliecl in tl're statutc arrtl equallv aplrlics ttr Commissions of Iutluiry. In this respect reliance is placecl on Saleem Malik V PCB (l']l-D 200U SC 650) at I'].659 in the following terms;

prfuciple o.f natttral irrstice is re ad in eoertl " . . . . . . ..The

statute as a mandatonl rule itt the command of the Constitution, u',hich is also recognized il lslam and a lflw or an actiorr tr:hiclr is irr cotrflict to this goldet frlinciPle may luttte no legal effect or consequeflce. This Prirrciqle uill also be applicable to the proceediugs be/ore tlrc Commission of lnquirry rcferrad altoue tohich Ins all ancillanl a

incitlental port)ers for the p rPose of holding inquiry under Pctltistan Comttrissiotr ol Inquiry Act, 1956 "' """

4L). Everr otheru,ise we also canllot agree with the view of the respondent that no r.ight to be hearcl carr be givcrr to the Petitioners on the basis of the saleem just Iike Malik case (Suprra) as it involvetl arr ir-rtlivitlual because to the contrary the irlpugnecl repolt of the Corr-rmission the Commission in the Saleem Malik the case (supr.a) w,as a fact firreling intluir.y irrto a group of indivicluals namely ['akist;rr Cricket tcatn arrtl trot a sitrgle person (Saleem Malik) or organization as in thc irrstant casc.

50.llven otherw.ise a plain rearling of the irnpugnecl report reveals not only that it is tlisparaging ancl accusatory of the petitioners and the sugar industry in violatirrg various laws but it lras caused huge damage to the reputation and clignity of the petitioners arrcl other sugar Mitlers without even hearing their point of view. In the case of Ainsworth v crirninal ]ustice system tlatecl 09.04 1992 lrassr:rl Lry the Fligh cotrr.t of Australia it w,as lrtrlcl as uuder at Para 27,37' ar-rr"l (r5.

" 27. lt has long becn accepted that reputation is an interest attractitrg the protectiotr of the rules of natural ittstice' Ilrrrs, orci,r t(ttlttnlrlgrr, /t'sse/ M.!1. stid ttt Fisl 'r t' Krnrrc (1879) 11 Ch t.) .t53.

"according to tlrc ordinary rules by uthich iustice should be afuinistirerl bv committees of clubs, or by any other body of pcrsons tulio tlccide rtpot tlrc conduct of others, (they iught not) to blast o tnsn's teputatiott for euer' pethaqs to nri, ltis prospects for ti[e, toitltotrt gitting hittr dt' opporturtitV of eitlrcr deJetrtling or palliating his conduct"' "37. It docs ttot fttllotl thnl,ltctrutse tnnndntttrs nttd certiornri nre inrtpltlir'nbla, lltr nppt'llrtrrls ttttrst lttrt lltis Ctnrrt rpithotrt ratnarly 'l'lttl''lrnt roillt rtspe:tl lo prrtcadurtl liirtu'ss lms detrloped irt spilc of llre ictlutitnl rrsltcr ts rtf tlte prarogrrtioo u'rits. Moteoaer, had ihe appellants imtl aduance notice of the Commission's inteniion to rcPort adztcrsely, its failure to obsente the reqtirenrcrrts o.i procedural fairness tttoulcl hattc cntitled thctn to reliel'br1 tort11 ttf pr:ohibition (23) Reg t'' L'iuarPool 't-ati t laet Oferntors' Cctr1tttrn liotr, L,.t pitrtt' l iltrpool -Assorintiott (1972) 2 QB 30g-j10; tle tlovnl Conrnission on Tlnnuts arce (1980) 1 N7.t ,l< 602, tt p 615; see so Reg. r'' Mnrks; Ex pnrte Artstrnlinn I)ttrldittg Lrttrstrr tctiort L'uryloyees nnd lluildcrs Lnborrrcrs' [:adernliott \'/ANU/AU] U0027/1981 : ['198'l] IICA 33; (1951) 147 CLR 47'1, pcr Mnsort l. nt p 484; lleg' t' Corttrttorttltr llt Cotrr rlrrrtirttr rrtttl Arhitrntion Ctttrrrttissiotr; Ex prrrlt Arrgliss t,rorry (1969) 122 d,R 546. preaentin7 it [rot't rcportittg tdutrst'ltt tuitlxntt first gioittg them a opportu-ttitq t.) ansu.ter the matters llut against tlrcm and to l0

3U

that put sub,ttissio,$ as to fintlittgs o! n:2ry::"lations Atnetts (1990) i,r'igtrt t , rnade (24) St'Mnltoi(1984) AC 829; ti6 iin, Per M'nsott C J Dtttrtt atl McHuglr At ll' pp 603-604;.

been nnde nnd ;:r;;;,,',,; l. rtt p (t12'u'ttltItrctend' tlrc rcpoit lu,s s 2 78 of the Act And' although it tlaltpererl trt nttortltrrrLe effect Itad rto legal effect or cot$eqtrctrce, it had tlrc practical tlrrt1,i,ri'the appetlanis' reputatiorts',. Prima facie' at "ilettst, tlrcse nt.Tttets suggest tlmi the appellants are entitled iu ai,rr:torotory retief oJlhe kind gratted !':-2h':/.constable o. ioor, <zsl. ltgtizl'LtKt-il' 10; igazl t Iht'R All EI< 141."

" 39. Tlt prcsettl cttsc ttt('ol'('es tto tn(re hypotlrctrcnl questton' At Cor:tntssrott's tluttl rrll slngcs tlrcre lrrts bL'Ptt tt t'otrltttt'crsy rrs to Ilte s 218 of ,r,l'f,,,ritass. A repltvl lns l'cttt ttrt'li nntl dcln'eratl ttnder rlnl' Act That rcport has tlreadrl had practical consequeflces For all that is kttoron' those lor tlrc appellants' reprtttttions' 'rrrnrrqrriirn, rnatl cxtend zoell into tlrc future' lt is be made itr ternrs indicating arlr./rt"r, that a rlecloration timt ihe appellants utere denied natural justice' That marl redress sonre of tlrc ltntnt done'

"46. lt ts esltectnLltl nltprttpnnte thnt ltrdtunl reu.eto sltould bc nt,ntlnblc zplrcn tle fi,rr:tinu conferred by stfitute ts to ntqutre rnlo tuttl n'porl ott i ntnttet tnoolinng rcPtttntnn-' eoen tlmtgh tl:e no remedy relrort',;n11 lmte tto cffect ol legat rigtrts or habilittes,' for ,,i,r,1 ot'l,rrrur* l'e ninilnl'le toi'rtrrlti'tlc tlr dmtrtgad re1nttntiott'"

"56...llrprtttltott rrr thts cotttc'rl ts ttot restrtcted to rePutttttott r|ltttlt ts t,alttttblt' rrt bttstrrcss: natural jttstice is required to lte

obsertted tulrctteuer .t statutory authority contemplates a

pultlicatiotr u,hich tt,ould affeit reputation lt. dirrtinishing tlrc cstirtration in rL'htch thi"bearet'of tlrc reputatiotr stands has an itr the opirtion of othcrs. Tlrc bearet of the reputation interest zohich i's sr'bject to ttdoetse affectiott if the statutoty authoritq publishes the cottentplated repo-rt ancl that is sufficient ioth to attract the requirement- of n.atural justice- o,irt tu giae locus statdi to seeic iutlicial reaieut if natural jrtstice i rleniert. Kto t.l\ltst (1985) 159 CLR' "65..,Where an official entity, pwportedly cxercising a stattfioly poT.ter or perlortning a statut.o'y frutction ushiclt requires'it'to obscn,e ttie rules of natural justice'.publishes a rcltort dartagirrg trt tt persorr's reputatiott tuithout haaing giltten tlnt pir"uu n, opportrutitll to be hcard on the matter' that pusoti is entitlcrl to a declaration that tlrc 'report,facii itrinm so .far as it iltunages his or her reputatio't' has been pro,lu'cerl in breach of tlti erttity's duty to -obserue the rules 'of nafitral ittsticc... Tlrc Cottrrnission ditl not accorcl fait treatnrcnt to the Petittorrcrs arul it is right so to declare"'

51.It is high tirne that we in Paktstan move wtth the times and protect such put over importaut rtghts to reputation etc by allowing persons a fair chance to of tht'rr' of vtcu'trefore clrsp.rragrng them ancl htrlniliating them in thc eyes 1-rotnt

I

3l

thc pulrlrc [u our vtew suc[r ctsparaglng cotnments made agatnst the petrttone'rs the right to ancl thc Su6Jar rnrlustrv ln the irn;-rugnctl report r'r'rthout grving them bc he'rr..tl has ntlt only clarna55ecl thc rcfrutatlon of the petihoners but has also

violatecl their Constitutional right to clignity as provided in Article 14 of the

Constitu tion

52 t\s such rt,e frrrr,l tl'rat siuct thL' PL'tltit)l]ers werc tlcuted their right to be hcartl thc rr-n;rugnerl l{cpor-t I'ras no lcgal v.rlue tn IesPCCt of the petitrorrers atrd c.-intl()t Lre useci .-rgairrst them antl cau br. rt garclec'l as a one sided report where the

petrti()nel.s were clenrecl the rrght to Lre hearcl anrl a fair lrearing as envlsaged trntlt,r Artrcle 10(A) of the Constrtutiorr

53 It rs notablc tllat llone o[ thc mcrlrlrers of the Commission har-l "-rrry ('x p('r'trsL' au,-l cx1-rt-rrettce tn thc sugar inclustrv ln Pakistan despite tlre Crrurnrtssiou havrt-rg thc'powcr to apptrtnt such experts ln our view considering thc l'C)li's of the Comrnlssron rt n,as absolutely essential that an expert tn tlre sug.rr rnrlustrV rv?s ct rlember <tf the Corrtr-nrssion as thts was a specialtzecl antl leclrnrcal fielc] which rcquired an L.xpcrt rrr the sugar rnclustry to ensule that the I Cpot.t \,vas balance.rl anrl itr lruc. rvrtlt inrlustn, practtce .rncl tire relevant laws rclatrrrg to the sugar rnclustry Although we do not frnd this a reason to holcl the rmpugnc,cl report to be wrthout law,ful authorrty (r,r,hlch rve have already done'ott .lcc()utlt of other grouuds menttonetl in this Orcler) ln any cvcnt in our vtew it gr.t'atlV Ltnr.lel.lntnes tht frnrlrngs tn the re Ptlt't evetl tf we hacl not alreacly st-t rt .rsr(lc alrLl iountl rt kt be'r.r'tthtlut lalvftrl autholity

5.1 lt is also cloubtful whether the Lor-nmrssron stuck to its mandate of bcrng 1.rurr.ly a fact finrLng cornrnissron wherr sorne of its comments ale secn itr cotltcxt [;or examplc, para 100 lvhtcl-r tluce again we reproduce for ease of r r'Icrt'r'rcc

'100, As cltscusst-t1 e.rrlier, that the sugar t-niils have beelr chargurg rnarglns after arltlrrlg the sales tax whrch resulted tn extri clrargrng of Rs.1.02 pcr kg. This is a daylight robbery, from the pockets of the general public, to the tune of Rs'5'2 billion every year. The Government may direct the FBR to recover this hefty amount by ascertaining the additional profits thus rnade by each sugar mill in the past.

55 In orrl. view para 100 rn ef fect is a f inctng tlrat the petrtioners and other sUg .tr t'tttllers have rotrbetl Ils 5 2 Brllron frorn the general public and that thts

a I 3s

rnolley shoulel be recovered from the respective millers including the petitioners which in our r.,iew exceeds both the scopc of a fact finding inquiry and goes L.eyonrl the rcasorr ior establishir-rg tl-re Ctltnlnission aucl its terms of reference' Prejtr dice to the Petitioners

56.T he responclerrts have conteutletl that the impugnecl I(eport has causec'l no

prejutlice to the petitioners, Iike wise the action plan and the requested follow up actions by the Goverrrment. We however clisagree with this contention and fincl that tlre ir-npugnec{ report of the Comtnission ancl subsequent actions takc'n urrtler it has greatly plejudicecl the petitioners.

57.This is ar-nprly illustr.atecl bir iust one letter written by Barrister shahzac'l Akbar Aclviser to tlre Prime lr4iuister orr Acctruutability and Interior to the Clrairmatr FBI{ Islamabad clatecl 27.07.2020 which reads as under;

"Barrister Mirza Shahzad Akbar Adviser to the Prime Minister on AccountabilitY & Interior Islamabad, JrlJY 27, 2020

Io The Director General, Federal Irrvestigation Agency, lslamabatl -l-he Chairmarr, Securitics & Exchange Comtnissiot-t of Pakistan, Islamabad Sub: INVESTIGATION OF CORPORATE FRAUD BY FIA / SECP

PURSUANT TO FINDINGS OF THE SUGAR INQURIY

COMlVIISSION.

'l'l-re lnquiry Commissiorr to prolre the increase it-r sugar price, which was constitutecl by the Fecleral Government under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 2017, virle Notification NO.F-5/14/2020 FIA dated 16th March 2020' has subrrritted its final report to Governltrent on 21'r May 2020 (enclosed f/Af Z. The fir-ral ."poit of the Inquiry Cornmission was presented to the Cabinet on 2l.r Ma1, 2020. The report wis reviewed by the Cabinet and an Action Plan was approvecl on 21st May 2020 in light of findings and recommendations of the Iriquiry Comnrission, comprising actions that are to be undertaken by various clepartnrents / agencies for pctal action, rccoaeries and fixing the reg,latory irornework. Later orr 2ikt Jurle 2020, the Federal Cabinet approvecl , revisecl Action PIan Matrix (er-rclosecl f/ B) fot penal action, recoaeries and identifies the criminal i naestisations to be carried o ut bu uario us instittrtions, as per their legal provisions, in light of the Islamabacl High Court Judgment 3. In its final rep ort to the Governtnettt, the Inquiry Commissio n, after l-rav irrg corrcluctecl fore rrsic ar.rclit of nitre (9) sugar mills, has Pointed out specific instances of corporate fraud tlrrou sh ass ociated companies throuq h accounting

JJ

L

a

bv these fraud and itrex plicable tl,l o ney-t t- ansfers leading to money-laundering conl rrallles. that as

4.It was observed bY the Cabirret.rn cl the Prime Minister highlighted bY the inq uiry Conrmissiolr, D/c under lti u

vlcw t withi ll I cla r tinrefranre prescribed bv the r el evant laws 7. I lte G<lverntnent is colnmitteLl to its visioll of fair-plaY and transParency artcl assures of any assistances that rlray be re quired in the free, fair and transp.irellt conduci of invt'stiga tiolrs ir-r this regarci S.l/- (Mirza Shahzad Akbar) Arlvisor to the Prime Minister (AccountabilitY and Interior"

53.ltrtlut.viewthisletteratrtltltlrersirnilarletterssenttootlrerbodieswhich Government through enclosed the report antl with the approval of the Fetleral under the its language clearly indicates that crimes have been committed other offenses Conrpanies Act 2O17, Anti Money Launclering Act 2010 and the FIA Act by the petitioners and other sugar Millers' In this respect rrrrder as uncler:

I'ara 3 and 4 of thc above tneutionctl le.ttcr are again reproclucecl "3. the Inquiry Ir-r its firlal rcP()rt to the Government' Comrlissiou, alter havirlll conclucted forensic auclit of nine (9) strgar r.nills, ftas p'ii,t"l ont specific instances of i*po.ur. fraud through associated companies through o..lrr'rtir',g f raud and inlxplicable money-transfers leading to nroney-latr nclering by these conrpanies'

4.lt was observed by the Cabinet and the Prime Minister that as highlighted by the inquiry Commission' the af oretne nt iorre d acts, intcr-alia. are culpable under and Companies Acl 20'17, Anti-money LaunderingAct 2010 falling under offences fallirrg uncler Schedute of offences [,ecleral Investigating Agency, ancl hence fall within the mandate of SECP and F-[A".

59.The eluestiorr therefore arises as to how a iunior officer in such inquiry when the orgaIrizatiotrs can possibly carry out a fair and inclepenclent and more so when I'ecleral Goverument has in effect alreacly founcl "culpability" above requirecl to lre is requireci as Per para 6 of the letter which is reproclucetl

lao a

tluoug5h Atlviser on accountability repot't his firrclings to thc lecleral Ccrvc'rnrnent arrtl I trtttrior Mr.Shahz-atl Akbar?

the Federal

60.Apart frorn raising the tlue'stion as to what legal authority c,ttYe rnr.r-.rttr-rt htrs to rtrtlltitor irrr irtr,estiga tiotr antl inquirv which even the courts

h;rve ior long helci is ou t o[ tht'ir tlot-uait-t it raises a more fundamental question ke.eping in vier.t' thc prevailing grouncl rcalities Namely' how could a iunior to defy the finding of culpability which has officer i. such institution dare on the Commission's already been made by the Federal Government based with the report has severely report? Irr our view the issuauce of such letters along inquiry and severely unclerminecl the prospect of any fair arrcl indepenclent Pakistan and as such all such prciuclicctl tl-rc petitioners aucl other sugar mills in aud as such are to be lcttcrs arc. struck tltlwt-t as trcir-115 tlf no lt:gal authority ii;rroretl b1' tl-lo along with the Commissions Report' '"t'O'"l-rts

Violation of the scheme of the Law

every citizen is obliged to I 61 . As taid clown by Article 5 of the Constitution what their status is in life abicle by the Constitution and the law I1() matter w,r,rt,trrer trrey be a poor pel.sol-l or a rich person or a prime Minister or the Federal

Cabinet.

and tlre 62' our Constituticln is basecl on Parliamentary democracy (Executive' legislature anci trichotonry of powcrs whcrc bl' each ir-rstitutiorr jtrclit:ian') kccps a chc''ck anel balarrcc on the other' (r3. C)rre task of the legislature is to pass laws which laws are also binding on tl-relcgislaturr:alrtltlreexecutivcilsll()lllallisabtlvctlrelaw.Lawsinissueinthis the Anti Money casc itrclutle, amollgst othcrs, the Itrcome ] ax Ordinanc e 200"1' Ordinance 1999' Such Launclering Act 2010 aucl the National Accountability l.liece-.stlflegislatiorrarestanclaloneant]selfcontainet]andprescribethemanner to be dealt with in accorciance in which people who fall within their purview arc the due process rights of

I

witlr that relevant law wlrich will usually safe guard to ar-ry s uspect/ accusecl arlL{ allow hinr a fair lrearing before an independent body may also rely on any safe ans\^'('r.rnv allegatiolls ag.lil1st Iritrl 'rtltl an accusecl guards as to l-ris rigl-rts as prov iclcel in the Constitution' l5

qt

as reProduced (rJ lrt ortr t'tt'rv tl.tt- st'rrtlrtll; ()[ \tl'lr lt'ttt'rs lry the Atlviser .rbot t' or thc' executtve autllol ttY t() st'ltutor) 'ruthorities ln essence directtng

tlrc,r-r-r to ;'rloceeci .rgainst ccrtairr illr'lrVicluals tlr boclres based on an enclosecl bodies have already rc;rort o[ tht' Cotntlrtssiol-t st.rttng th'lt sr-rch pets()ns ancl been found cUlpable antl irr.trvrtlc tltt. ctlr-ntItsst()11 rePort to such bodv arrtl ttme PeIiod on (,xprrct lt t() rcp()rt Lrack to tl-rc Fttltr.-rl covcrnmetlt withln a glven h'hat stcps rt hatl taken ag.rirlst thc irrt{ivrtluals or bodres ts not in line or tn

.rccor.rl.r r.rct with wrth the scht mr, ()f lirw. as envrsclfleci by tlre relevant statutt' or to send such lettcl's thc Corrstrtutiou .lltrl that thc c\(.cutr\/(] h.rs ntt lcgal authortty 10(A) of tlte rvhrch v r<tl.rte tl-rc tluc process figltts of the petrtioncrs undel Article CotrsIr tu t ttlt't

of each

65.'lo allort' such acttotts woulcl not rlnly defe'lt the intent and sPlrlt 1-rrcce oI lcgrslatlon Lrut rvoult] als() crcatl' 'r r'langerous precedent whereby witch (loVelntneuts cottlcl use tlretr t.xccutir'(' 'lutllorlty to attemPt to victimize' such statutory botlics hur.rt or ()therlvrsc att.-rck thcrr p()lrttc.tl ()[rPoll('nts througlr irr w,hrch woulrl lrc ctttltr.lrv to lhc' rult'o[ l'irt'atrtl goocl govcrnance especrally fcspcct o[ f rsc"rl anL[ .tccoLlltt.lbrlrty lelirslatrou lrhlch c.rn Lrc usctl [o Ptcssuti't-e

anel ar rn tw'ist polrtical o;rponeuts Such bocires are governecl by their own boclrcs which statutt,s . rtl tltt, tttcutn.e lr.ts no Port,ct' to ttrtt'rfert' withsucl-r ,tLlst c.1l.r\, ()ut thctr. rvork rrrtlt petrrlcrltll, in .rccorclance with their statutes as cannot be clirectecl passccl bv the lcgrsl.rturc at-rLl evcl-l jurrior officels ln a statute with powers kr !ftt cc,rtatr-r tlrrr-rgs bv tht rr. supe.riOrs ullless it is in accOrclance offlcers actlng conlcrrt,tl Orr thent Lrv tht, r.otlCCfnctl St.rtu tc .rncl that at .rll tlmes trncler.r statutory authority are lttnttctl to thc authority given to them under such

st.l tu tc

(r(r In thrs res;-rt'ca."r*]*.. rs plact'tl ()11 thc SuPreme Court case of Wateen 'felecotrr Ltd V Sindh tfr.otgf.t Secret'rry Ministry of Finance (2019 I/TD 1030) r,r,lrt'r-t' rt rt'.rs ht'ld .rs tttltlt'r al [1r r.r 7 -7 " Parrrsrl ol- 5ccirrrrt 28 rhd, rtJltt'ls tlnt tlus entpotrcrs Offrctr of Stndh llt'ocrrrrt' I]ttnrd not belorc tln roflk of Asststmtt l'otlnttsstotlt'1, trlto tttrrtl ott llte ltrrsts ol tltt llttttrtt sh ntted bV n Srth-settton (2) of rt'gtslt'rcrl p.t\(ttt, t)r tlt( t(tortls obtrrttrtd trndar 5t\, ttotr )7 cottdttcl tttt tttt(ltl ol sttclt lnrprttlL'r ()tt('? Itt fi ycfir' Tl s.

s/rlr.sr'r lrtrll ltrr Itt'tt prttls ()ttc ts tlt't! 'ttt tudtl crttt bt' cttulucted ttrr tltt itasts ol' Ilta Tttt Rctttn sttbnttttad h1 tlrc Tnxptnyer Tlrc- on tfu hnts of st'tottd tt, tltrtl trtt ltrrltl ,<i,hl ''l'o bc condrtclcrl ns tlrc rccttrds oltttttttrl trttdtr Srtbsatttrttr (2) ol'sectrotr 2T lnsofnr

JO

4z

rtol rhscloscs thnt nny reconl llrt,\t,tlt ttt\ttar tt t't,tttIrtt(rl. tl ittt's (utt\ ()ltlit ttl rrrrrh,r -\r.r ltotr )/ (tl,rl), !lttrcfore, tltts tttttlcr ts only hnst.s of Retuflt trtttlltr,',1 to llr lirst ltrrrl t t' crtrtthrct ofnrtdrt on the to Subsectron (7) ,,,lrl,,i,,,ur',,t lttl tliu' t'lrtttttrl'[ lttstt[tr trs'tlrc Proltso Connng ts L(ttt ('t'n(:(l tltrtt rs ttol rtlt'i'rtrtt for tlrc prcsottt pttrposes' Io Strhscr ttotr (2), rl rrllrtts llnl ttlicn ttw Officcr of 9rdlt l(elr,rrrrr, Llottrtl ltrr- rltLtrlrtl lo rt)ltitt(l ttt attdrl ttthlPr \ttbsaLttL)tl Is\ttt'tt tt()ltL(' ol rttrrlrl l() llrc PCrsott tnfornrtng lttnt of 'tlt,l ln'sltttll 1l), rccords or nt,,1tt prttco,rlttrgs utri rlrrtt'l ltrrtt to prodtrce mt1 tlrc ,ltr, tntrt,ttls, tllttrlt'srt,l1 qtllittt' lltttt/ rt'qtttr( [Ltr condttcttng nttirt lNltttt lltt rtlorr<rrrrl or()t'tstotts rttt' t't'nd togctlrcr uttlt tltc lns ttttpttQtrt'tl tlt)lt((, tl il)ltt'ttt\ llt(tt tltL' Dt'Pttllt Cotmnrsstoner ,rr',,r)i tlu' \nttt( tttttlt'r 5Itl'stt-ltott (2) ttl' Stclttttt 28 (fuul) Tlis resrtltortlrl rtrcans lhat the Dcptttrl Comntiss-io-n l:as deudcd to corrluct an autlit ,,rdr, ,r,irsrition (7') of Section 28 and to tltrortglr intpugnatl ntttica, he has asLed.for relcaant record ltc ttutdc at,ailnltle. Thcrefora, .firstltl it is to be examined tlrttt lris tlecisiort.[ttr rtecrlirrg tti conittct audit is in line uith tlrc prottisions ni Srfusectioii (l) of Sectiott 28 or not' And as

troted earlier, it is onlrl on (attl rttust be based on) the basis no o1 the Retrrrltr frrrntshid [t11 tlrc Taxpnrlct, as -adt.rittadly ,lilorrrrrrrt, lrri,e brn olttrtined undtr Sectiort 27Q) ibid' Nozo any.

the piaotal qttestittrt is, llttt utlrcthcr tuitltout assigning ,r,rrrr,rr, tlte l)c1trtlr1 Ctttttrttisstotter ott tncre axattinatiol of Lht' ILatrtrrr, c tt ttt.4k a it'ctsion for such audit"' Lrkewise ttt tlrc Suplemc Cout't c'lse tlf Commissioner of Inland Revenue

1444) where rt si.rll<ot V Messrs AIlah Dirr steel .rnd Rolling Mils (2018 I')TD rvas ltcltl as untlct at I)ara 16,

16.A pcrusal o.[ thc stattttonl landscape rua.kes it clcar tlut the prottisions ol scctions 177 and 2-t 4 of the Ordinance; ttG of the AcL 2005 srr'litrn 25 o.[ ilt; Act, 1!)90 trtrd st'ctiorr ltrot,idc 'follozoe,l a rrtcch,trrrstu and roarlnro1t zuhich is rcqttircd to bc brl the Tatatron Officcr/Attditor' ltt ternls of sectnn or 177 of tlu' Onlrtrrttrt't', llr- Cottiitt tssrttttc r cttn cnll for tln'-record dtLtritrt'trls [rt r trntitrr ttng lltt ttttdtl of llrc hn nflhrrs ol P?rsott' ltttt(,ttlttl ltri' lt tttrltr't ,/lr/s(),/.t 1() r r srt, 5ttt/l rcrtsotts tttust be ttttttrtttrttrcttlcrl lo lln' I rrt1,t|1ct'. I lt' Crttt nlso saCk ttltlnttnltOtts [rOttt llrt lnxpttT'r ()/r l.sslr('\ rnrsti lttrtttg tlrc nttdtl nt t.ernts of sccttott l/7 of ttrc: L)rlttttrtttt' It is onltl il he is conainced that the ex1tlasmtiotr .furnislrcd lty tht TtxpaVer is 'tot satisfactory' he tnfllt proc:eerl to antend tlrc asscssnrerft under section t[ tltc'(irdrrurnce, a.fter sitting tlrc Taxp-at1.er an opportunitll t7t tlt'farrd hirrr. a u,i ili:,,1o", of tltc -z'ieru that tlrc statuiortT frarrte toork toge tlrcr zt'i t-h tlrc ouerarching urnltrelli oi constitulional gltarantcas funish adequate atrtl 'safegrmttls st{ficiett to tlrc 'faxpaver zolrcrc there is a p<tssibility ol i't,erstappirq bry Llrc Tax nrtthoritics' l.tkt'r.r'tse rrr tht' Suprt'lrlc ('otlrt c'rst' trf t(hawaia Salman (r8 Rafique and where rt Another v NAIi tlatc,rl 17 ()3 2020 rn (-rVrl I'ctttrot.ts No,2243t- arld 2cx]6l'

!z

rr,'.rs lrcltl (rs LlllLlcr at tltt' lrrllt'rvrntl PJra's (alLlroug,h tt is rcl'rtt'el k-r Lr'rrl

tot-tstrlt't'tts ftntltt-rgs rt'levatlt ttl tlrc tttsLatlt casc );

Ltotnl courts ttt ')J I)tstrtltotr lrrts ltt'ttr Srttttcrl to lln' cortstt trul ttt

r,trlrt ltt rrttlt'tt tltt \toP( (;I llrctr ltLtrter corttpctetu:e' nlhert courts are rrtllrrtt llrc ltrtsttrl,t,l p,rr,ttttctrrs Thc cLtnstitutional llre guardtiatt o[ thc constittttion, ond tluts requiretl to eflsure llrot tlre exc(utt7,? re[rn irt .frottt ttiolttitrg the cottstitutional trrttrtdata, atrd to stop sttt'h ttrclntiorr tuhen it occurs' The Corrrt ltos trt rcztit'tr Iltt'ct'tcrtltztc ttctiotts aild the co duct of tltc ptiltlic tuthLtril ir:s tttt llr touchstone of Jaimcss' reasorrnbleness ond proportionalitq' They shottld not lrcsitate itr perfotrtrittg thcir constitttiional duty obiectioely' partiutlarly tilrcl' it ('tttttcs I(t tha nntter of nghts that lmte 'Iteetr grtnrinteed br1 the constrtrttiotr, rue should remain ,rrurrtii,l oI tltc sct'rsttiz'itrt of srtch issuas, as unless the cotrstittrtiorrollry g,,urn,,trri nghts protecttotts antl prn,ilczes arc rcsyt:cted un,l sa[egtiarded -tlrc situation shall 'irtat,iti-blrl deqenerutc ittto ihios nnd anarchtl' People tt,ielding p<ttt,ir shout,l ttot lose si!<ht of thc fact tlnt tlrc cotr stitiitiotrnl I t1 gtraratrteed riglrts haue been obtained and sacrrad brt the'1'tcoptc oJ' thls countnl tltough a soctal contr.tct in the slrapc ol tlta constitrttit-trt'

3ll IlttttrLglr rls Arlttlc l tlrt ('ottslrltrlron Lltclnrcd tlnt to enloy tltt'yrotecttZtt ol ltttt, tttttl lo hc trcntL'd tn nct'ordnnca rurtlt lnto rs llrc rttrrlrr'nnblt' ttgltt ol t't'(nl (tttzctl, ntrrl tlurt o nctrcn dr'trrtttt'trlnl to lln' lrli', l 'rrlt1, bod11, reprttatiotr or proPcrtV nlhl tttttl Pcrs()tI sltrrll bc htltt'tt t'.\tt'PL ttl trctorlnltc u'ttlt .lnu'' AnLl itt tcitns of Article 5 tlecloretl ibedience to tlrc Cottstitution and citizen' Artrcle 9 of latp to be rtrt,iolnbla oblrgatiotr of at'en1 lltc CrttrsltltrltLttt Sttttrttttl(a\ lltttl ttt' ltL'r\ott sltnll bt of ltft 'lcprttn'd ttr I tcrttt ,,rrr' ,,, ,,rrorilttrt' tt'tllt lito The dignity of nnn has becn protectctl os trtr ittttiolable rrgltl' Equalitq-of all citizens b$orc tlrc kxo, utd their entitlcnte t to equctl protection of loto hns bcan quaranteed through article 25'

l!). llta (ottrls tlt Pol\tslitt lrat't lenlorrsltl protected tlto Itttttlrtttttttlrtl ltlltl\ tolllt'rtt'tl btt tln' rttttsltttrttLttt' ltt lln' crtst oI Prthrsltur I)rorrt rtslcrs Assttt tttlrtttt PLD 2016 SC 692' tltc Cottl rr'tlernlL'd llrc o!l rtlttnlcrl .\)ttsltlttltonnl ltrrttcrplc os follotos:- Llntlottbtedltl tlo L)tl(' cnn be deprntcrl of lus ol' Irrndrrttrutlt lrg/t/s, 5trr /r rtgltts ltctng tncnynblL' ['atttg drltslatl ot tl'rt,]pcrl llr ltgtslnlt't' potpers ,ott1t:rt,',1 ott lltt \lttlt ltrtttltcttttrrcs cnn be excrtrserl ottltl lo rtrrtlrrlt tlttst rrtltl tlrrcxtqlr ret.sonnble rcslt tt ltLtus rttttl lltll ltto trs tttnq lte nnndnted ht1 lnru t rrtttl trol olltt'rltse The nuthority toielding sttrtrttonl lrotuars conferred ofi it ntust act rc,tro,,ui,lri (artrphl,sis suppticd) and uitlrin the scttpe o.[ the f outets srt confe rred" '

40 ltr llrt cttsL'Ltl l)tslt'tcl llrtt' Assorrttlrrut, rePorlttl ns PLD 2015 SC 401, rr I,t'rtclr cort..ts/trr,q ol tlte t rrll Cotrrt Pronortnced tlmt t8

Lig

nnd Protttirttrl rlnrrtcttrisltr s, tllticlt dcfined the Constitrttion Letlernlisttt' toarc i!s Sulitttl lcrrlrtr(s ntclrrdcl Dttttncrncy, llrc -l'nrlirlt,etrtrr',t Islnnic l-onu o.[ (]ot'ernttterrl blended toith riglrts' Prot'isiotts,'ltult'pttr,l,';tt,r o[ ]triit'iu11' Fttldnnrcntnl ,1r,riii,t11, i,,rt,rr,,,,,,1 ltrtr [)lrr'y,'Prolttlrott f'r'i'.j,t, ntrd prue,n'ntion ol llu' nnd ns ,','1'',,,,,r.rrlits, ltollt ts t'qrrnl t ttt:Ptts of Pnkistnn nrit oril it's L'lt.

ln Wttlntr Ptrrltl Crrst, rcltorlcrl as PLD 2011 SC 997 lhis (inrrt citcd rlil)r iy4ri:ox,tl, its,',,rrlttr lrottott'tc-?' ent m tlrc cnse of Eli Lilly Pnkrsltttt 2009 SCMII'127 toltrch rends:- "It is thc duttl rtnd obligation ol the Stat-e ofi accourtt of the uurious Ptooisions of the Cottstittttio,t to prottide thi atmosphere based ott honestrl ltq yrot'iding equal prot-ection of latrt. Eaei c-itizen nruii be treated equally' dignity of htman being life shou,ld be niii,,t'ai,,e,t, tnd libertq ol lile and honour rtrust be guarantcctl as enttisaged in tlrc Articles t),74 ani 25 of the "Cottstitution"'

47.Lltt.litrlrrttlltltl, hLtrtt't't'r, t't't'tt o.flL't 72 yenrs sirtc.c the crention t,I tlu:, t:orrrrlry, aitrl tlts1,it, '17 tltnrs sittt'r' tl:c mloption ol tlrc Cotrslittrtitttt, rrL' ltrtt't' trt'l l't'L'tt nhlt' to rettlize llrc spirit and rue ltm'e et'en cssence o.f tltc irlanls st'l rttrl tltcraitr' Ttt lhc contrnry' fnilcd ttt rtrllu'ra lo sotttt o.[ ils trtosl hnsir cotnnnnds nrul prescriptiotts. The people ol this country arc frequently denied- 'tights' Prittciples of their cons titt.t t ionai h1 .guaranteed eqrtality, fairness, tita,)i,,,n a'ul rasPect for democratic ,orrrr'ori llnrt ted rt'ilh inrpunitrl' Dogmatism' intolerance' nelrotism, irorrrlisur, in inci'tnrpetetrce, regressiott' deceptiort' miiplacett se'lse 'f fiiw prete,rr'e, sel.[-proleciiotr, 'biasas, - corruPtion

st.tperiorittl, cli.ffcrertt and preiudices' and haue sceperl iinb ortr sttcicttl arul liaue nou inundated it' Eflorts, ttthctrrtto' tnada lor the s-uprcfi,acy 'I the cinstitutiotr, atul the ruk of laut lmoe been thutartetl tttith |rril 1orr". Tha principle of tuichotomy of poto-er and tlrc "cou/ept of rleztolrttiorr hate ltcen tranrpled ll)ith contempL Arrngrruri, saf-righ te ousttcss and apathu are ruling the roost",

not referred to by (:9. We woulli also like to make it clcar that although it was the ]udgment of a eithcr of the parties in oral argut'rlents we have consicleretl sin11le lrerrclr rrI tlre Islanrabatl I ligh C.ourt tlatetl 20 '06'2020 in the case of

a PakistansugarmillsAssociationVFederationofPakistaninWPNo.l544/2020 and with great (currently subiect to an Itrtra Cirurt Appeal before that Court) fincl that we are not rlctt:rc-'ncc aur,1 respect to the leametl juclgment of that court ()ut in this order' pcrsrrarlt'rl t() t'IUrcc with its tintling lor tht'rcasotrs set

t'f

70.As rnentioned earlier in this orcler this court is of the view that corruption, tax evasiorr, money launclerirrg, caltelizatiorr are abhorrent and are cancers which nre e.rting;rrt,tty ;tt the very fabric of our sctcietY and its economic developrnent and irr cases where accused have been convictecl of such offenses they should be r-lealt with by arr iron hancl. 'I'hat said persons or bodies suspected of such cr.irtrinal actrvities must be pursued strictly in accordance with the law and the Constitutiorr and afforded the due process rights of all accused as guaranteed by the constitution which must be upheld at all times so that the rule of Iaw is upheld along with principles of good governance.

71 . I lowever lauclable the objectives of the Government rright be (as in this case setting up a Commission to Probe the rise in sugar prices) it rnust fulfill tl-rose objectives strictly iu accordatrcc with the law and the Constitution and in tto of hcr lt-t<tn ltel'

72.We would also like to exPress tlur deep concern as to certain issues which have alisen whilst hearing this petition. In particular whether the Government is being carr.ied out in accorrlancc with tl-re intent and spirit of the Constitution. This is because our Constitution envisages a Parliamentary democratic form of Governr-nent where the Government is run by the elected members of Parliament who have r.eceiverl a manclate by virtue of the will of the people to whom tl'rey are trccountable to and vet it appears that a large number of persons who corrsistently attend Cabinet rncetirlgs are unelected persons especially sAPM',s who irr sonte cases woukl not evcn qualify to be elected under the Constitution as either arr MNA ol senator ancl have no accountability to the people as they are utrelected which prir11a facie appears to be contrary to, amongst others, Articles gl (g), 92 (1) and (3) ancl the scheme of the Consrirution. The framers of the Cor]shtrr tior] themselves by virtue of Article 93 of the Constitution very wisely t.ecogrrized tlta t. there may be portfolio's which rerluire particular expertise anrl has allowecl the Presiclent on the Aclvice of the Prime Minister to appoint 5 unelected aclvisers in ot'der to assist the Prirne Mirrister in perhaps fitling positions which rctluire specializecl input whicl-r is not available amongst the elected , represerrta tives of Parliarnerrt, for irrstance the Ministry of Finance. The concept of so mauy unelectecl SAPM's r,vho consistently and regularly attend and participate in meetings of tl-re Cal:rinct (which in effect is the body which makes exccutive clecisions) arrd arc unL.lectcrl arrd uuaccountable to the people however is alien to tl-re Constitution anci the concept of the our Parliamentary system of u

4a

with Govelnrnetrt as crrvisaged by the Cor-rstitution ancl is more in accordance the Plesirlential system of Government (which was a part of the abrogated and in our Corrstitutiorr r.tf 7962) but is not envisagecl by the Constitution of 1973 this View a time rnay come wlren the superior courts might need to examine issue especially as it must causc' much heartburning to the elected lepresentatives. In the same vein the longstancling practice of Governments luling through a large number of Presidential Ordinances promulgated unr-ler Article 89 of the Constitution, as opposed to <luly passed Acts of Parliament' wl-ren in many cases the criteria governing Article 89 have not been met in that

r-rncler Article 89 a Presiclential Orrlir-rarrce can only be promulgated if Parliament is not in session and "if circumstances exist which render it necessary to take irnrnecliate action". such practice once again militates against the system of

I)arliameutary democracy whereby [ar'r's are promulgatecl by Act of Parliament whilst following the procetlurc laitl clonc in the constitution. By governirrg in this r-nanner it begs the question whether successive Governments, including the present Government, may in effect rather than abiding by and following the

Cor.rstitution as per the comrnancl of Article 5 of the Constitution are by design rleliberating by passing or cir.cumventing the relevant Articles of the Constitution without good reason ancl fot'reasol"ls not contemplatecl by the Constitution' 73. h-r aclclitiorr, the presence of an ac-lviser on accourrtability, in our view, only

serves t() untlerrnine the inrie.pentlc.nce ancl the credibility of the NAB as this leaels to the pgrcgplUn that tl.re Government is working hand in glove with the

NAB against its opponents especially when the perception arises that it is mainly the opponents of the Goverument who NAB is proceeding against as observecl r.ecently, and earlier referrecl to in this order, by the Ilonorable supreme Court in

the case of I(hawaia salman Rafique and Another v NAB d,ated 17.03.202O in Civil Petitions No.2243L and 2986L and where the Adviser regularly lambasts thc opponents of the Government for cortuption via the media but keeps mum on arly suclr acts allegedly cornmitted by the Governlnent (quite naturally as he is a part of the Government) and as such this undermin es the pelception of even

handed accountably across the l'narcl in Pakistan in tl-re eyes of the public at large.

74.lt is also tlifficult to unclerstancl the neecl for an aclviser on interior when there is alreacly a Federal Minister of Interior and how they can co-exist within the frarne work of the Rules of Business in terms of allocation of business to the Mirristr.y of Interior and whicl-r rules rnake the Minister of Interior head of that Ministry. ln our view this cloes not lend itself to either good Sovernance or clarity in Covernance

4l

J

q1

75.Ultimately, however, in the encl we must not lose sight of the fact that both our legislature and executive are the creation of the Constitution which is the Supreme law of the larrc'l ancl uncler Article 5 of the Constitution every citizen owes obecliettce to the Constitution arlcl the law in both letter and spirit which 1 also applies to the legislature and the executive.

Corrclusion,

76.Thus, for the reasons mentioned above when taken together and considered in a holistic manner namely;

(a)The failule to follow the mandatory rules of business and (b) The failure to Cazette the Notifcation of the Commission within due tirrre arld

(c)The it'rcornplete composition of the Commission and (d) The bias of the Commission and

(e)The clenial of the oPPortunity of being heard to the Petitioners arrd

(f)Prejudice causec{ to the petitioners by the report' the

I

Action plan and letters which were sent by the Adviser on accourrtabilityatrcllnteriortovariousstatutorybodiesand

(g)Violation ancl interference in the relevant schemes of law ancl the Constitution by the executive to the preiudice of the Petitioners and

(h)The violation , amongst others, of Articles 4' 10(A)' 14 and 25 of the Constitution by the respondents;

We hereby:

(a)declare the Itnpugnetl Notification of March "16, 2020 ancl the Inrpugrred Report of May 27, 2020 ancl all subsequent and consequent actions arrcl orders of the Resporrdents includir-rg but not limited to the actions taken and clecisions made in pursuance thereof, whether taken clirectlv or indirectll' tl-rrough clepartments, offices, agencies' authorities' officers, officiats, employecs, agellts ancl assigns in any manner t whatsoever, to be witlrout lawful authority and of no legal effect, with regarcl to the petitioners, antl quash the Impugned Report and all such actions and orders;

t 4s

(b)Prohibit the Responclents ioit.rtly and severally and all other goverrlrnent clepartltrents, offices, agencies, authorities, officers' officials' employees, agents anc-l assigns both from clirectly as well as indirectly taking any adverse action or passing any adverse orders or placing any .t leliance upon or making any reference to the Impugned Report and/or actious takeu or decisions mac'le in Pursuallce thereof including the action platr arrcl letters sent bir the Aelviser on accountability aud Interior to various organizatior-rs Pursuant to the Commission's report in any manner whatsoever against the petitiorrcrs and/or prejudicial to their interest or beirrg in any manner whatsoever influencecl thereby;

(c)Direct

(i)the Chairman of the National Accountabilitv Bureau (NAB) to oPen an irrc{epenclent inquiry(ies) to be carried out in accordance with the National Accountability Olclinance 1999 (NAO) to determine whether any I acts of corruption as fall within the purview of the NAO have been committecl by any of the petitioners or arry other person without reference to the lieport of the Commission and without reference to any letters relatecl thereto ir-rclucling without limitation whether uniustifiec{ subsiclies have beeu grantecl to any sugar Miller by any misuse of authority by any Governrtent official which unduly benefited or favored that sugar Miller which inquiry shall ensure tlre full due process rights of the petitioners which inquiry shall not associate any Person involvecl in the preparation of tlte Comtnissiot-t's report and which shall include arr indepentlerrt expert with full knowleclge of the Sugar industry in Pakistan rvhich inquiry(ies) strall be taken to their logical conclusion under the NAO anc'l

(ii)the Chainnan IrBIl. to opetr an inc.lepenclent inquiry(ies) to be carried out iu accorclance with the relevant taxation laws to determine whether any illegality under the relevant taxation legislation have been committed t by any of the petitioners without reference to the Report of the Comnrission anel without reference to any letters related thereto which intluiry shall etrsure the full tluc process rights of the petitioners which ir-rquiry shall not associate any person involvecl in the preparation of the Cortmission's Ieport ancl n'hich shall inclucie an independent expert with 4l

q1

full kr.rowledge of the sugar intlustry in Pakistan which inquiry(ies) shall be taken to its logical conclusion under the relevant taxation legislation anc-l

1 (iii) The Director General FIA to open an indePendent inquiry(ies) to be cat rieti out in accortlance with the Anti Money Laundering Act 2010 (AMLA) to cletermirre whether any acts of money laundering as fall within the purview of the AMI-A have been committecl by any of the petitioners without reference to the Report of the Commission ancl without reference to any letters related thereto which inquiry(ies) shall ensure the full due pl.ocess rights of the petitioners which inquiry shall not associate any person involvecl in tl-re preparation of the Commissions report and whiclr shall include an inclepenc'lent expert with full knowledge of tlre sugar industry in Pakistan.

(iv)The CCP, SECP anr,l SBP to fulfill their respective mandates in accorclance with law with respect to the petitioners and the Sugar t Inclustry without reference to the impugned rePort oI any lettels sent to them in connectiou with the impugned report.

77.A copy of this ortler shall be sent to the Chairman NAB, Chairman FBR' Director Gene.al FIA, Chainnan of Cornpetition Commission of Pakistan, Chainnan of securities ancl Exchange Commission of Pakistan the Governor State Bank of Pakistan ancl the Chief Secretary of Sindh for compliance'

78.fhe above pctition is clisposecl of irr tl-re above terms l E rtJ*)z-z-

UU

JUDGE

! A rr.-L,.J\ 6{t-r--\ (-^-'V o\'^ f :/"ai 2-- L--r= 'lz.-4-.- Kr-r.

&L T

[&-tr*qfl "l^e^^nJ ,a ,*. 1.1