2024 PLC(CS) 1325 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

ASHBA KAMRAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary to the President, President's Secretariat, Islamabad 'Expressio unius est exclusio alterius'---Meaning---Expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others---Where a statute has conferred a power to do an act and prescribed a mechanism for exercise of that power, such power cannot be exercised for the purposes of performing the act by adopting a different method, other than what has been prescribed. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 1325 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE ASHBA KAMRAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary to the President, President's Secretariat, Islamabad art. 199(1)(b)(ii)---Expression “authority of law”---Connotation---Expression “authority of law” means official right or permission to act, specially to act legally on another's behalf by virtue of authority, derived from, or granted by, or under the prevalent legal system - aggregate of legislation, judicial principles and accepted legal principles. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 1325 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE ASHBA KAMRAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary to the President, President's Secretariat, Islamabad art. 199(1)(b)(ii)---Constitutional petition---Quo warranto---Scope---'Eligibility test' and 'Competence test'---Jurisdiction conferred under art. 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution essentially empowers Court to inquire into and determine legality or otherwise of claim to public office, which inter alia includes power to determine claim of competence-cum-eligibility of holder of the Office [the “eligibility test”]---Jurisdiction extends and enables the Court to test whether appointing authority possessed competence to make appointment under challenge [“competence test”]. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 1325 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE ASHBA KAMRAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary to the President, President's Secretariat, Islamabad Foreign judgments---applicability---Foreign judgments have persuasive / non-binding effect but their analysis provides effective tool for comprehending the proposition of law and assists in interpreting legal concepts / jurisdictional issues. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 1325 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE ASHBA KAMRAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary to the President, President's Secretariat, Islamabad Ss.3 & 8---National Database and Registration Authority (Appointment and Emoluments of Chairman and Members) Rules, 2020, R. 7A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Writ of quo warranto, issuance of---National interest---Authority of law---Scope---Petitioner assailed appointment of respondent as Chairman National Database and Registration Authority on the plea that Federal Government lacked authority under National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, to appoint a serving officer of Armed Forces as Chairman---Plea raised by authorities was that respondent was appointed in national interest---Validity---For the purposes of assumption and exercise of “quo warranto” jurisdiction scope of inquiry could not be extended to include determination of authority / competence of legislature or for that matter embarking upon examining vires / constitutionality of law--- Federal Government under S.3(3) of National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, appoints Chairman and Members to the Authority---Wisdom of legislature could not be adjudged in guise of “quo warranto” jurisdiction to delegate such authority to delegatee---Provision of R.7A of National Database and Registration Authority (Appointment and Emoluments of Chairman and Members) Rules, 2020, is a specie of delegated legislative authority subordinate to the parent enactment---Legality and extent of exercise of delegated authority can be adjudged under “quo warranto” action---High Court was empowered to inquire and determine exercise of authority by the Executive / Federal Government, in the guise of R. 7A of National Database and Registration Authority (Appointment and Emoluments of Chairman and Members) Rules, 2020---Such close-door approach entailed reduced competitiveness, exacerbated social inequalities and had curtailed professional opportunities, which resulted in intense brain-drain--- Seeking refuge behind plea of national interest was non justiciable, which in fact had violated principle of separation of powers, where in fact the Executive had exceeded or over-stepped delegated authority and proceeded to introduce an incompatible rule vis-à-vis primary enactment---Claim of national interest failed as the same was un-plausible---Discretion was necessarily needed to be exercised to end usurpation of the office---High Court declared act of confirming appointment of respondent as unauthorized, inconsistent with the (parent) enactment and without requisite “authority of law”---High Court further declared that the appointment, confirmation and continuing holding of the office of Chairman NADRA by respondent was without authority of law---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC