Prof. ZAHID BAIG MIRZA vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY art — 2022 PLD 398 ISLAMABAD

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Prof. ZAHID BAIG MIRZA VS CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY art. 245 ---armed Forces---Role and functions---Business ventures---Scope---No provision existed under the laws which authorizes or empowers Pakistan army to undertake, directly or indirectly, activities beyond its composition for the purposes of welfare, unless Federal Government has expressly granted permission to do so---Pakistan army has no power nor jurisdiction to directly or indirectly engage in business ventures of any nature outside its composition nor to claim ownership of State land---Constitution expressly describes two functions of armed Forces---Primary function or Constitutional duty of armed Forces is to defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war and that too under direction of Federal Government---Direction of Federal Government is a precondition---Other function is to act in aid of civil power when called upon to do so---Multiple eventualities could be requiring armed Forces to act in aid of civil power e.g. internal security, natural calamities such as floods, earthquakes etc.---Secondary function to act in aid of civil power is subject to law and can only be undertaken if 'called upon to do so'---In case of both the functions, armed Forces cannot act on their own---Such are the only two Constitutional functions mandated to armed Forces---Since command and control of armed Forces vests in Federal Government, therefore, no branch can undertake any activity or perform functions outside their respective establishments unless expressly directed or called upon to do so---Pakistan army nor its officers are authorized or mandated to undertake, directly or indirectly, any activity such as leasing government land for commercial purpose.

Prof. ZAHID BAIG MIRZA vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY art — 2022 PLD 398 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PLD