| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 4930 2025 SLD 4930 = 2024 SCMR 2010 |
Civil Review Petition No. 360 of 2024 in C.P.L.A. No.304 of 2022. (Against the order dated 11.06.2024 passed by this Court in C.P.L.A. No. 304 of 2022)., Civil Review Petitions Nos. 360 and 361 of 2024 in C.P.L.A. No.304 of 2022 Civil Review Petition No .362 of 2024 in C.P.L.A. No. 305 of 2022, Civil Miscellaneous Nos. 7355, 8848 and 8870 of 2024 in C.R.Ps. Nos. Nil of 2024, decided on 10th September, 2024.
Present: Qazi Faez Isa, CJ, Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, JJ
For the Petitioner/Applicant: Naeem Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.R.P. No. 360 of 2024 and C.M.A. No. 8870 of 2024). Taimoor Aslam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.R.Ps. Nos. 361 and 362 of 2024). In-person (in C.M.A. No. 7355 of 2024). Khurram Raza, Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Mahmood Ahmad, Advocate-onRecord assisted by Mouood Fiaz, Advocate High Court (in C.M.A. No. 8848 of 2024). For the
Respondents: Nemo (in all). Date of hearing: 03rd September, 2024.
CAPITAL VIEW POINT RESTAURANT (LA MONTANA), ISLAMABAD--- Petitioner
VERSUS
CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman, Islamabad and others---Respondents he MONAL GROUP OF COMPANIES, ISLAMABAD---Petitioner Versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman, Islamabad and others---Respondents, he MONAL GROUP OF COMPANIES, ISLAMABAD---Petitioner Versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman, Islamabad and others---Respondents
Law: Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979
Section: 21(1), 21(2), 21(4)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 188, 189
Law: Partnership Act, 1932
Section: 69(2), 69(3)
2024 S C M R 2010
(a) Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance (LXX of 1979)---
----Ss. 21(1), 21(2), 21(4) & Preamble---Islamabad Capital Territory Zoning Regulations, 1992, Regln. 3---Partnership Act (IX of 1932), Ss. 18, 19, 20, 69(2) & 69(3)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 188---Review petition---Margalla Hills National Park ('the National Park")---Preservation and conservation---Restaurants operating in the National Park---By way of the judgment under review the Supreme Court declared that any lease, license, allotment or permission granted by Capital Development Authority (CDA), or by the Remount, Veterinary and Farms Directorate ('the Directorate') or any other department/ authority to operate restaurants in the National Park was contrary to the provisions of the Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979, therefore, the same were of no legal effect and were set aside---'Capital View Point Restaurant' (a partnership firm) was operating two restaurants under the name of La Montana and Gloria Jeans in the National Park---Plea on behalf of the petitioner (partnership firm) was that the partner who had voluntarily agreed before the Supreme Court to vacate the premises within three months had a minority seventeen per cent share in the partnership firm ('the Firm'), therefore, he could not have made a commitment on behalf of the Firm---Validity---Firm in question was not registered---Effect of the non-registration of a firm is attended to in the Partnership Act, 1932---Subsections (2) and (3) of section 69 of the Partnership Act stipulate that no legal proceedings can be initiated to enforce a right arising out of a contract by or on behalf of a firm unless it is registered and by partners who are shown in the Register of Firms as partners of the firm---Therefore, since the Firm of Capital View Point Restaurant was an unregistered firm it could not have filed the present Review Petition and applications nor could its partners agitate the matter---As regards the contention that an undertaking given to the Supreme Court by a minority partner does not bind the firm was contrary to the law---Partnership Act stipulates that 'a partner is the agent of the firm' (section 18) and that the partner 'binds the firm' (section 19), and also that such authority 'falls within his [partner's] implied authority' and 'binds the firm' (section 20)---Documents filed by the Firm and its partners in the Review Petition and the listed applications confirmed that the Firm and/or its partners were in illegal possession of the land situated in the Margalla Hills National Park ('the National Park') and were illegally running restaurants (La Montana and Gloria Jeans) therein which they could only have done with the help of those in power---Utter disdain and contempt for the laws of Pakistan and the degradation/destruction of the National Park was made possible by the complicity of those who were required to protect, preserve and conserve it; they were in the service of Pakistan, but were unmindful of their duty to serve the people, instead they served moneyed interests---Before the judgment under review was announced an undertaking was given by the petitioner, in the presence of its counsel, to vacate the (restaurant) premises but it now wanted to resile from it--Making a mockery of solemn undertakings and to render them meaningless could not be permitted, and those doing so must suffer the consequences---Due to the petitioner's contemptuous behaviour and misconceived contentions the Supreme Court decided to withdraw/delete from its short order and detailed judgment under review the portion where the Chairman CDA present in Court stated that he would designate an officer to consider the request of the petitioner to give it preference in the leasing/allotting/licensing of premises/land for the running of restaurants if there were premises/ land available for such purpose, and if the law permitted so--Review petition and connected applications were dismissed.