SC rules out leases, allotments in Margalla hills national park

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed review petitions against its judgement of June 11 that declared all leases and allotments inside Margalla Hills National Park (MHNP) contrary to provisions of Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance 1979.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, dismissed review petitions filed by private parties, and upheld its decision delivered in June. The court announced its decision earlier reserved on September 3 in the review petitions.

The bench on June 11 had ordered closure of all restaurants operating in Margalla Hills National Park after granting three-month time to the management of these restaurants for shifting their business to some other areas with the ruling that the matter pertains to preservation of the park that belongs to the people of Pakistan.

Similarly on August 21, the court in its detailed judgement had declared that on Sept 11 the Wildlife Board will take over the possession of the restaurants and barricade them. After that they would be razed to the ground without any damage to fauna and flora, and debris would be removed from the National Park area.

The court had said that the Wildlife Board could then determine how best to utilise the mountain ridge on which stood the said restaurants, and it may consult experts and environmentalists to examine whether the foundations of the said structures should also be removed, or used to make an artificial lake to collect rainwater which can be used to put out fires that erupt in the National Park. On Tuesday, the 13-page judgement authored by CJP Isa held that the owners of restaurants had voluntarily offered to vacate the land of the National Park in their possession within three months, adding that the court had appreciated their gesture and recorded that in order dated 11 June 2024, which was confirmed in the detailed judgment.

The court held that the said undertakings to vacate the premises were given in the presence of their respective counsel but they want now to resile from that.

“Making a mockery of solemn undertakings and to render them meaningless cannot be permitted, and those doing so must suffer the consequences,” said the judgement.

The court held that the cases were not heard in chambers nor by a single judge but they were heard in open court by the three-member bench, and the short order was dictated in open court in the presence of everyone. “What is stated is regrettable and unnecessarily generates controversy where none exists,” it said.

The court after dismissing the review petitions also withdrew its earlier observation regarding leasing of land for running the restaurants where it is permissible. “We have been persuaded by their contemptuous behaviour and misconceived contentions to review our said short order and detailed judgement and to withdraw/delete the following therefrom,” said the judgement

The court noted the counsel had submitted that the CDA may give them preference in the leasing/ allotting/ licensing of premises/ land for the running of restaurants where it is permissible, as their businesses will be affected. Similarly, the court also noted that the CDA chairman had told it that he will designate an officer to consider the request and if there are premises/ land available for this purpose, and if the law permits, preference will be given to those who are voluntarily vacating restaurants from within the National Park.

The court held that the petitioner, Luqman Ali Afzal, in the presence of his counsel had voluntarily agreed to vacate the restaurant situated in the protected National Park. “The review of a consent order cannot be sought, yet surprisingly this is what is sought,” said the judgement, adding that Taimoor Aslam represents Luqman Afzal and stated that the short order and the detailed judgement have rendered the intra-court appeals pending in the Islamabad High Court redundant.

“Once a case is decided by this court its decision is binding on all courts subordinate to it in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,” the court held

The court further held that if there are any intra-court appeals pending adjudication or any other case before the high court or any other court with regard to the matters attended to in this court’s judgement the same will be binding thereon, and resultantly the appeals will be rendered infructuous.

The court also dismissed the CMA filed by Brigadier (retd) Falak Naz, legal adviser of Ministry of Defence, who had objected to the observations made about him in paragraph 5 of the June 11 order.

The court held that Falak Naz did not dispute the facts recorded in the said paragraph, but objected to his loyalty being questioned. “Needless to state, that every employee in the service of Pakistan is employed to serve in accordance with the terms and conditions of his service,” the court held, adding that Falak Naz elected to attend this court as the legal advisor to the Ministry of Defence of the federal government by upending the office of the Attorney-General for Pakistan and tried to justify the actions of the directorate. “He also made untenable excuses for the officers of the directorate who were not complying with the order of this court directing the production of the file which would have revealed on whose instructions the purported lease agreement in favour of Mr Afzal was executed,” the judgement said.