Find a Lawyer

SAIFAN-UZ-ZAMAN KHAN versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

- Arts 9, 19A and 1993 ? Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court - Public law litigation life Right to information information - Locus Standup Scope - Applicant, an investigative journalist, holds 51% of a Sought guidance in relation to the proposed acquisition of The shareholder agreement was barred by a private company from a foreign buyer. The second point of the petitioner was that the said transaction had damaged the public interest and was in violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 and the arts of the Constitution. 9, 19 A & 26 Annoyed. - The applicant further claimed that Article 19A of the Constitution gives the public the right to information about such transactions - the applicant has made a mistake or a public affidavit by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. Injury warrant was difficult to recover. And accepting the applicant's privileges will open the door to virtually every private transaction attack on Touchstone allegedly stolen by some duty or tax. - The High Court observed that in private matters, the High Court should not follow a revolving inquiry as was identified by the applicant under the banner of public interest \\\ especially where other regulatory authorities in this area. Was mandated by. Under Article 19A of the Constitution, promoting transparency by ensuring the right to information was of great value when citizens were aware of matters relating to public administration, but this did not mean that trade matters in commercial matters Touchstone of Article 19A of Article 19A before a court asking a member of the public to trade in private

P L D 2017 Sindh 559

Before Munib Akhtar and Yousaf Ali Sayeed, JJ

SAIFAN-UZ-ZAMAN KHAN—Petitioner

versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 7 others—Respondents

Constitutional Petition No.D-1111 of 2017, decided on 3rd April, 2017.

Constitution of Pakistan—

—Arts. 9, 19-A & 199—Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court— Public interest litigation—Right to life—Right to infÓrm;ation—Locus Standi—Scope—Petitioner, an investigative journalist, sought direction assailing a proposed acquisition of 51 % shares of a private company by a foreign buyer vide a share purchase agreement—Contention of the petitioner inter alia was that the said transaction harmed public interest and was in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and offended Arts.9, 19-A & 26 of the Constitution—Petitioner further contended that per Art. 19-A of the Constitution, the public had right to infÓrm;ation in respect of such transactions—Validity— Contention of the petitioner hardly established a public wrong or public injury warranting redressed by High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution and to accept the petitioner's contentions would open door for an invasion of virtually every private transaction on the touchstone of alleged evasion of some duty or tax etc.—High Court observed that High Court should not embark on roving inquiries into private transactions such as that identified by petitioner under banner of upublic interest" especially where there were other regulatory authorities in the field mandated by a statutory responsibility of maintaining vigil their respective spheres—Right to infÓrm;ation under Art. 19-A of the Constitution was of immense value in promoting transparency by ensuring that citizens had knowledge of matters concerning public administration, but the same did not mean that commercial transactions in the private domain which did not have any direct nexus with matter of public administration be opened up for scrutiny before the courts on touchstone of Art. 19-A of the Constitution at behest of any member of public whose curiosity may be piqued— Constitutional petition, therefore, did not fall within the domain of *public interest” was not maintainable, and accordingly dismissed, [pp. 561, 562] A & B

Javed Ibrahim Paracha PLD 2004 SC 482; Salahuddin Dharaj v.

Province of Sindh PLD 2013 Sindh 236 and Atta Ullah Khan Malik v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2010 Lah. 605 ref.

Shehla Zia’s case PLD 1994 SC 693 distinguished.

Dr. Amjad Hussain Bukhari for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 28th March, 2017.

famous lower court advocate from Gojra lawyer