ISLAMABAD: The federal government on Thursday approached the apex court against the Sindh High Court’s (SHC’s) judgment on sugar mills’ petition against the Commission of Inquiry report.
The SHC on 17 August 2020 had quashed the fact-finding report and the notifications constituting the Commission of Inquiry.
The appeal filed through the Attorney General for Pakistan, Khalid Jawed Khan, prayed before the court to suspend the SHC’s judgment.
It said the SHC upheld the Pakistan Sugar Mills Association’s (PSMA’s) contention purely on technical grounds that the summary for constituting the Commission was initiated by Interior rather than Cabinet Division and that the notifications were belatedly published in the official gazette.
The federation contended that the SHC grossly erred in law and facts, and based the impugned judgment on completely unjustified assumption that the aggrieved party in this case was the group of manufacturers of sugar.
It stated the aggrieved party in that matter was millions of consumers who were being grossly overcharged the price of an essential commodity, i.e., sugar by a ‘cartel’ of sugar manufacturers.
The public at large also suffered billions of rupees in evaded taxes owing to under-reporting of the actual production by the manufacturers.
The appeal said in order to redress the public grievances the federal government constituted an inquiry commission under the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act, 2017, to ‘unravel’ the true facts and ‘expose’ the inner working of this industry.
The commission carried out an in-depth probe and associated the PSMA.
On 21 May 2020, the commission delivered its detailed fact-finding report.
The commission was neither authorised nor did it take any adverse action against any respondent or indeed against any other person.
The inquiry commission merely submitted its finding of facts and also made recommendations for reforms of regulating authorities.
Sugar mills, however, filed a writ petition in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against the notifications dated 16 March 2020 and 25 March 2020, and the report of the Inquiry Commission dated 21 May 2020.
The IHC dismissed the petition on 20 June 2020.
The PSMA, thereafter, filed a writ petition before the SHC, which passed an interim order.
The federal government approached the Supreme Court against that order.
However, the apex court had disposed of the matter on 14 July 2020.
A division bench of the SHC on 18 August 2020 passed judgment.
The federation submitted that the initiation of summary by the Interior Division instead of the Cabinet Division for appointment of the Inquiry Commission and belated publication of the notifications dated 16 March 2020 and 25 March 2020 in the official gazette was due to an “innocent” mistake.
However, it did not cause harm or prejudice to the respondents or any other party.
The federation submitted that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the statutes and neither the notifications nor the report of Inquiry Commission causing no harm or prejudice to the respondents could be quashed or set aside by the SHC on mere technicality.
The federation submitted that the SHC judgment made observations about the appointment and role of Advisor/SAPM [Shehzad Mirza] despite the fact that this was neither the issue directly nor argued in detail before the court.
The findings in the impugned judgment are contrary to the facts and of the law as well as the Constitution.
The impugned judgment of the SHC is contrary to the settled principles of law as well as principles of equity and is liable to be set aside by the apex court.
It said the subsequent addition of a member to the Commission after the approval by the Cabinet vide notification dated 25 March 2020, did not violate the provision of the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act, 2017.
The commission’s report is merely a fact-finding exercise and cannot be set aside on the basis of apprehension of the respondents against who no final determination of rights or liabilities has been made in the report nor any action taken as such.
The exercise undertaken by the commission could not be aborted or stopped on the assumption that the reputation of the respondents may be adversely affected.
The remedy for damage to the reputation, if any, could lie in a suit but not in a writ jurisdiction nor any finding on disputed facts could be given in a writ jurisdiction.
The federal government or its functionaries are under obligation to act in public interest and probe all the cases and to promptly follow up the proceedings before departments, authorities or bodies as it directly affects the fundamental rights of the people at large, according to the appeal.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2020
Comments
Comments are closed.