Sardar AMBER MAQSOOD vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, PRIVATISATION COMMISSION PIACL Ss

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

Sardar AMBER MAQSOOD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, PRIVATISATION COMMISSION PIACL Ss. 3, 11 & 12---Privatization Commission Ordinance (LII of 2000), Ss.23 & 24---Privatization of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Limited (the PIACL)---Competition Commission of Pakistan---Role, object and scope---In the privatization of the "PIACL"the role of Competition Commission of Pakistan (the CCP)is both pivotal and exemplary, reflecting its statutory mandate as an independent, quasi-judicial regulatory authority established under S. 3 of the Competition Act of 2010---The CCP's involvement in the acquisition of 100% shareholding of the PIACL by PIA Holding Company Limited (Holdco) underscores its critical function in scrutinizing mergers and acquisitions to prevent any appreciable adverse effect on competition within relevant markets. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 827 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sardar AMBER MAQSOOD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, PRIVATISATION COMMISSION PIACL Preamble of a statute---Purpose, scope and significance---Preamble to a statute is though not an operational part of the enactment but it is a gateway, which opens the purpose and intent of the legislature, which necessitated the legislation on the subject and also sheds clear light on the goals which the legislator aimed to secure through the introduction of such law---The preamble of a statute, therefore holds a pivotal role for the purposes of interpretation in order to dissect the true purpose and intent of the law. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 827 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sardar AMBER MAQSOOD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, PRIVATISATION COMMISSION PIACL Ss. 3, 11 & 12---Privatization Commission Ordinance (LII of 2000), Ss.23 & 24---Privatization of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Limited (the PIACL)---Competition Commission of Pakistan---Role, object and scope---In the privatization of the "PIACL"the role of Competition Commission of Pakistan (the CCP)is both pivotal and exemplary, reflecting its statutory mandate as an independent, quasi-judicial regulatory authority established under S. 3 of the Competition Act of 2010---The CCP's involvement in the acquisition of 100% shareholding of the PIACL by PIA Holding Company Limited (Holdco) underscores its critical function in scrutinizing mergers and acquisitions to prevent any appreciable adverse effect on competition within relevant markets. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 827 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sardar AMBER MAQSOOD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, PRIVATISATION COMMISSION PIACL art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, exercise of---Non-functionality/non-existence of statutory forum to entertain statutory remedy provided by law---Scope and effect---Ordinarily when a statute provides for an alternate forum, a party must first exhaust such remedy before invoking constitutional jurisdiction---However, where the statutory forum is non-existent or has not been constituted, the litigant cannot be left remediless---The extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under article 199 is therefore available in such exceptional circumstances to ensure that justice is not defeated merely on account of the failure of the executive to establish the requisite forum. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 827 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sardar AMBER MAQSOOD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, PRIVATISATION COMMISSION PIACL S. 5---Privatization Commission---Functions, objectives and purpose---Section 5 of the Privatization Commission Ordinance 2000 makes it abundantly clear that the Privatization Commission has been entrusted with a broad spectrum of functions---Its role is two-fold: firstly, to act as an advisory body to the Federal Cabinet by recommending policy guidelines, preparing comprehensive programmes, and suggesting necessary legislative or regulatory measures; and secondly, to serve as an implementing agency to plan, manage and control the privatization process once it has been duly approved by the Cabinet. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 827 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sardar AMBER MAQSOOD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, PRIVATISATION COMMISSION PIACL S.25---Privatization by the Privatization Commission---Scope, authority, and procedural compliance---The privatization policy aims to create a mechanism for generation of funds for the retirement of government debt while ensuring improvements in service and operational capacity of utilities in a transparent manner for effective management of domestic industry, greater domestic investment and economic growth---The objectives of privatization are to improve the operational efficiency and overall performance of entities, to reduce the fiscal burden of the Government, to promote and strengthen the capital market, the creation of a conducive economic environment and improve overall efficiency---The process of privatization is enshrined in S. 25 of the Ordinance 2000and the Privatization (Modes and Procedure) Rules, 2001---The Board of the Privatization Commission and the Cabinet Committee on Privatization determine the process after deciding one of the modes viz (i) sale of assets and business; (ii) sale of shares through public auction or tender; (iii) public offering of shares through a stock exchange; (iv) management or employee buyouts by management or employees of a SOE; (v) lease, management or concession contracts; (vi) any other method as may be prescribed---The objective of privatization is not merely profit-making, but to enhance productivity, attract investment, and reduce inefficiency in loss-making enterprises---It has also been acknowledged globally that privatization can bring about managerial autonomy and operational flexibility, enabling enterprises to compete in a globalized economy---These decisions affirm that privatization, if conducted within the framework of law and with appropriate safeguards, aligns with the constitutional mandate of economic development and public welfare---Therefore, rather than being viewed with skepticism, privatization deserves protection and support when it is pursued with accountability, fairness, and the broader goal of national progress. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 827 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sardar AMBER MAQSOOD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, PRIVATISATION COMMISSION PIACL art.199---Privatization Commission Ordinance (LII of 2000), S.25---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in matters relating to 'privatization policy' and 'economic and commercial matters'---Judicial overreach---Scope---Protection of foreign investment in Pakistan---Constitutional courts must exercise judicial restraint in economic and commercial matters, particularly in relation to the privatization policy, to prevent disruption of national economic objectives and divestment from loss- making State-Owned Enterprises---High Court cannot ignore the instances of judicial overreach wherein extensive interference by courts in contractual and investment matters has, over time, contributed to uncertainty in the regulatory landscape, adversely affecting Pakistan's ability to attract and retain foreign investment---Investor confidence, both domestic and international, hinges upon the predictability and stability of legal framework---The Constitutional courts of Pakistan must exercise judicial restraint in matters that impact foreign investment in Pakistan---The role of Courts in matters of economic policy is necessarily limited---The judicial review of economic decisions is confined to assessing whether the policy is arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory, or violative of constitutional mandates---The wisdom of privatization and the decision to open certain sectors to foreign investment, lies primarily within the competence of the elected branches of Government, provided the process complies with the law and respects Constitutional boundaries. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 827 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sardar AMBER MAQSOOD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, PRIVATISATION COMMISSION PIACL art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Judicial restraint in matters relating to Government's economic and privatization policies---Scope, purpose, limits and concept---In the absence of any glaring illegality, or violation of fundamental rights, the Courts must exercise judicial restraint for passing any adverse order, which can potentially hinder or nullify any government initiative to encourage and promote the investment process because judicial restraint encourages the judges to exercise their powers with restraint and wisdom and to limit the exercise of their own powers to intervene in the matters relating to policy of the Government having financial perspective and outcome and exercise---Under art. 199 of the Constitution, the Court is thought competent to exercise the power of judicial review to examine administrative actions from the touchstone of violation of law and breadth of the Constitution, yet the power of judicial review is regulated by the principle of judicial restraint, the purpose and extent of which has already been discussed supra---While using powers under art. 199 of the Constitution relating to a policy of the Government with financial layout and implications, the Court exercises the power of judicial review with judicial restraint as a substantive approach to interfere in such matters within the contemplation of judicial review while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 827 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sardar AMBER MAQSOOD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, PRIVATISATION COMMISSION PIACL art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, invoking of---Public interest litigation---Locus standi---Scope---Public Interest Litigation is an extraordinary jurisdiction enabling the High Court under article 199 of the Constitution to address questions of public importance involving the enforcement of fundamental rights of the public at large, particularly where disadvantaged or unorganized segments of society are unable to approach the Court themselves---Such jurisdiction has been exercised in matters of environment, human rights, detention, labour, prisoners, health, education, and transparency in governance---However, it is settled by now that Public Interest Litigation cannot be misused for private motives or publicity and the petitioner must establish bona fide intent supported by credible material to justify judicial intervention---Public Interest Litigation, though entertained with a liberal approach, must be founded upon some credible material demonstrating violation of law or infringement of fundamental rights---Mere bald assertions, unaccompanied by documents or evidence, cannot constitute a valid cause for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under art. 199 of the Constitution. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 827 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Sardar AMBER MAQSOOD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, PRIVATISATION COMMISSION PIACL Ss.23 & 24---Privatization (Modes and Procedure) Rules, 2001, R.3---Privatization Commission (Hiring of Financial Advisors) Regulations, 2018, Regln. 3---Privatization Commission (Confidentiality and Secrecy of Documents) Regulations, 2003, Regln. 3---Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (Conversion) Act (XV of 2016), S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.173 and 199---Privatization procedure of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Limited, challenge to---Notice of intent to commence privatization and valuation of assets---Requirements---The petitioner filed 'pro bono publico' writ petition challenging the privatization process of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Limited (PIACL), alleging non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Ss. 23 & 24 of the Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000, inasmuch as no lawful advertisement of intent was issued nor proper valuation of assets was undertaken, thereby rendering the entire exercise arbitrary, non-transparent, and violative of the fundamental right to information under Article 19-A of the Constitution---Nub of the matter was the determination as to "whether the process of privatization undertaken by the Privatization Commission was in conformity with Ss. 23 & 24 of the Ordinance 2000 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder or whether the same was tainted with arbitrariness, procedural impropriety or lack of lawful authority"---Held: There was no doubt that failure to comply with the procedural requirements of S. 23 of the Ordinance 2000 would have rendered the privatization process legally defective and open to judicial review---Bare reading of Ss. 23 of the Ordinance 2000read with S. 5(o) of the Ordinance 2000 made it abundantly clear that it was the duty of the Privatization Commission to invite open applications for the purpose of privatization, after consultation with the Federal Government, for making the process transparent and competitive by preventing favoritism and ensuring fair competition---It was evident from the record that the required newspaper advertisements were published in national newspapers "Daily Express", "Daily Jang" (Urdu Newspapers) and "Dawn" and "Business Recorder" (English Newspapers) on 02.04.2025---Notice of invitation was also got published in international dailies "Financial Times" (03.04.2024), "China Daily" (02.04.2024) and "The Wall Street Journal" (02.04.2024) by the Commission---The said advertisement was also got published on 15.04.2025 with at least thirteen days gap on "Daily Express", "Daily Jang" (Urdu Newspapers) and "Dawn" and "Business Recorder" (English Newspapers)---In this view of the matter, the record demonstrated that advertisement of privatization of the "PIACL" was issued in consultation with the concerned enterprise in accordance with requirement of the S. 23 of the Ordinance 2000---Moreover, the issuance of a formal valuation report was a condition precedent for the progression of the privatization process which ensured that the Commission, bidders, and the public were fully aware of the independently assessed value of the asset being privatized---It was evident from the notice of advertisements that the Privatization Commission had appointed EY Consulting LLC, as the Financial Advisor along with other consortium members to conduct the transaction---If S. 24 of the Ordinance 2000 was read with S. 23 of the Ordinance 2000 along with Ss. 5(o) & 5(p) of the Ordinance 2000, it transpired that Privatization Commission was empowered to evaluate the bids against the criteria fixed by it---Record was indicative of the fact that the Privatization Commission had appointed EY Consulting LLC, as the Financial Advisor to conduct the transaction in the prescribed manner after seeking proper approval from the Cabinet and hence this requirement was also fully met with by the respondents---Privatization Commission had duly conducted the process of privatization as per Ss. 23 & 24 of the Ordinance 2000---Regarding application of the petitioner seeking summoning and production of record pertaining to assets, valuation reports and financial particulars of PIACL regarding process of privatization, such request could not be entertained given the fact that such documents were confidential under Regln. 3 of the Privatization Commission (Confidentiality and Secrecy of Documents) Regulations, 2003---The process of privatization was strictly followed as per prescribed criteria, therefore, present petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Sardar AMBER MAQSOOD vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, PRIVATISATION COMMISSION PIACL Ss — 2025 PLD 827 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD