Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 4766 = 2026 SLD 4766 = 2026 PLJ 64
Peshawar High Court
ICA No. 1-P of 2017
Presented By: Muhammad Naeem Anwar and Kamran Hayat Miankhel, JJ.
Mr. Rehan Saeed, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Hamid Hussain, Advocate for
Respondents. Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad Jhagra, AAG and Mr. Khalid Rehman, Advocate as amicus curiae for Federal Government. Date of hearing: 21.1.2026.

CHAIRMAN PRIVATIZATION COMMISSION--Appellant

VERSUS

M/s. SWAT CERAMIC COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED and 2 others--Respondents

Law: General Clauses Act, 1897

Section: 6

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 264

Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000 (LII of 2000)-- ----Ss. 28 & 33--General Clauses Act, 1897 (X of 1897), S. 6--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 264--Intra-Court Appeal--omission of statutory provision--Change of forum--Right of appeal--Vested right--Procedural law--Retrospective operation--Forum of appeal--Jurisdiction of High Court--Appellate tribunal--Pending proceedings--Effect of statutory amendment--Maintainability of appeal--Return of appeal for presentation before Supreme Court--Right of appeal was a vested and substantive right accruing on date of institution of proceedings and could not be taken away except by express words or necessary implication; however, forum for exercising such right was procedural in nature and right of appeal and forum of appeal were distinct concepts--It was held that although a litigant possessed a vested right of appeal, he had no vested right to have appeal heard by a particular forum, bench composition or procedural arrangement--Court reiterated that statutes relating to procedure, including those altering forum of adjudication, operated retrospectively and applied to pending proceedings unless they adversely affected a vested or substantive right--Court held that omission of S. 33 of Privatization Commission Ordinance 2000 by Amendment Act, 2024 constituted a procedural change relating to forum of appeal and did not extinguish substantive right of appeal--It was held that after omission of section 33 of Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000, High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain an intra-court appeal filed under said provision--Court held that amendment merely changed procedural forum for hearing appeals and did not affect any accrued rights, privileges or liabilities of parties--Appeal returned.                                                                    [Pp.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register