Naseemul Ali VS The Executive Director

FONH NO.HGID'G

TUDGTEilT

'HEET

Til THE I'LATABAD HTGH GOURT

I'LATABAD

CAIE ilO. r WoP. J{O.ttol-2oto

Nstcenul All Ul.

fhe Erecutlue Dfuectcr, tecurltlct & Erchonge Ccmmltdcn cI Dchlttcn & Anclhor

Dele cf hearlngl I l6.tO.20l2 Petltlcner by a Rnfc lmran Az7z, Aduccole Retpcndentt by I Jtlr. tultcn Jtlazhor, Aducccte

NOOR-UL N. OUNE'HT I. The clqim urged in the

petition by impugning the judgment doted 18.o3.2o1o possed by the respondents thereby request for wqiving off the penolty omount upon the petitioner.

2.After elqborote qrguments by both the sides, leqrned counsel for the respondents hos qgitqted the mqintoinobility of the instqnt writ petition in view of Section 33 & 34 ol the Securities & Exchqnge Commission of Pqhiston Act, 1997. He emphqsized thot qctuolly, the oppeol is to be preferred to the Appellote Bench of the Commission, which the petitioner did, where-qfter, qnother oppeql Iies to the High Court os required by Section 34 of the sqid Act.

3.I hqve gone through the relevqnt provisions of low referred qbove. However, for convenience, sqme qre being reproduced herein below: - "3t. Appecl lc the Appcllctc Bcnch cf thc Ccmmlrllcn (l) An oppeol sho!! lie to on Appellote Bench of the Commission in respect of qn order of the Commission mqde by one Commissioner. The person qggrieved by such order moy within thirty doys of the possing of the order prefer on oppeql to the Appellote Bench of the Commission.

@ The Commission shqll constitute on Appellote Bench of the Commission comprising not less thqn two Commissioners to heor oppeols under subsection (t)

(3)lf ony Commissioner who is included in the Appellote Bench hos porticipoted or been concerned in the decision being oppeoled qgoinst the Choirmqn shqll nominote onother Commissioner to sit in the Bench to heqr thqt qppeol.

W.P. No.l803-2010 2

(4)The form in which qn qppeol is to be filed ond the fees to Le poid therefore qnd other reloted motters shqll be prescribed by rules.

!4. Appeol cc che ccarG (t) An appeal shall lie to the qn order Court referred to in Part tt of the Ordinance in respect of of the Commission comprising two or more Commissioners or the Appelldte Bench.

dj The appeal under subsection (t) moy be filed within sixty dLys of the dqte of the decRion dnd shall be dccompdnied by o fee of one hundred ruPees.

4.Leqrned counsel for the respondent hqs qrgued thot when odequote remedy is ovqilqble to the petitioner, the stqtutory bor of iurisdiction hos been discussed in vorious quthorities delivered by the August Supreme Court of

Pohistqn. He referred lggg SCMR 1881 (Khqlid Mqhmood Vs. Collector of Vs. Universql Customs, Lohore) & zoos SCMR 37 (Collector of Customs & others Gotewoy Trqding corporotion ond Another), whereby their lordships hove qlternote obrerved thqt constitutionql jurisdiction not to exercised when efficqcious remedy is quqiloble under the relevqnt provisions of lqw.

5.ln the instont cose, odequqte remedy ovoiloble to the petitioner hos been ovqiled ond further qppeql os provided by Section 34 of the Securities & Exchonge Commission of Pohistqn Act, 1997 by preferring oppeol ogqinst the

sqid order is olso qvqilqble to him, which he did not ovqil. Therefore, in my

humble view, instqnt petition suffers from such technicqlities, hence sqme being non-mqintoinqble, is hereby dismissed.

QUnE )

Announced in Open Court on/6'/o'3e19.

q*,",

Uploaded By : Engr. Umer Rasheed Dar