| Case ID |
230b3aea-56bd-4e43-9d21-007cd43c52b2 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Writ Petition No. 59837 of 2017 |
| Decision Date |
Aug 23, 2017 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Munda Eleven Cricket Club on August 23, 2017. The court held that the Constitution of Pakistan Cricket Board is non-statutory in nature and actions under it cannot be challenged under the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The petitioner failed to present a resolution authorizing the President to file the petition, rendering it legally defective and not maintainable. Additionally, the club did not comply with the requirements to be an Active Club as per the PCB Constitution, including adopting the Model Constitution and participating in required tournaments, thus legitimately being declared inactive. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Munda Eleven Cricket Club vs. Federation of Pakistan and others, adjudicated by the Lahore High Court on August 23, 2017, the petitioner, representing the cricket club, challenged the decision declaring it inactive under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Section 199, and the Sports (Development and Control) Ordinance of 1962. The core issue revolved around whether the Constitution of Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) is a statutory instrument, thereby subjecting its regulations to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The court meticulously analyzed the PCB Constitution established via SRO No. 43(K.E)/2014 and subsequent amendments, concluding that it serves internal management and control, and is non-statutory. Consequently, petitions challenging PCB actions under constitutional jurisdiction were deemed unmaintainable.
Furthermore, the petitioner failed to provide a resolution authorizing the President to file the writ petition, a procedural requirement essential for the petition's admissibility. The court cited precedents such as Muhammad Zaman v. Government of Pakistan and Shafique Ahmad Khan v. NESCOM, reinforcing that the nature and efficacy of rules determine their statutory status, rather than their procedural formulation.
The Lahore High Court further addressed the petitioner's lack of compliance with PCB's criteria for active club status, notably the adoption of the Model Constitution and participation in mandated cricket tournaments. The petitioner’s attempts at substantial compliance under the doctrine of substantial compliance were scrutinized but ultimately found insufficient, as the petitioner did not fully adhere to the essential requirements stipulated by PCB. The court emphasized that substantial compliance is applicable only when the essence of the law is met, which was not the case here.
Additionally, the court dismissed allegations of discrimination, noting the absence of evidence supporting claims that similar clubs were treated differently without valid reasoning. The final verdict unequivocally upheld the seriousness of adhering to procedural and substantive legal standards set forth by governing bodies like the PCB, thereby rejecting the petitioner’s bid to overturn the inactive status.
This case underscores the paramount importance of statutory compliance and the limitations of constitutional jurisdiction in matters of internal organizational regulation. It serves as a critical reference for future litigations involving the interplay between statutory instruments and constitutional mandates, highlighting the judiciary's role in maintaining the sanctity of procedural and substantive legal frameworks in sports governance. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Lahore High Court,
Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB),
Federation of Pakistan,
Munda Eleven Cricket Club
|
| Judges |
Jawad Hassan
|
| Lawyers |
Shaigan Ijaz Chadhar,
Tafazzal H. Rizvi,
Tahir Mahmood Ahmad Khokhar,
Sadia Malik
|
| Petitioners |
Munda Eleven Cricket Club
|
| Respondents |
Federation of Pakistan and others
|
| Citations |
2017 SLD 2930 = 2017 PLD 802
|
| Other Citations |
Muhammad Zaman and others v. Government of Pakistan and others 2017 SCMR 571,
Shafique Ahmad Khan and others v. NESCOM and others PLD 2016 SC 377,
Muhammad Tariq Badr and another v. National Bank of Pakistan and others 2013 SCMR 314,
IPC through Secretary v. Arbab Altaf Hussain and others 2014 SCMR 1573 rel.,
Dr. Zafar Ullah and 5 others 2016 CLD 1283,
Air Marshal (R) Syed Qaiser Hussain v. Sajid Hussain Toori and 4 others 2017 CLC 617,
Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2012 SCMR 455,
Syed Ghazi Gulab Jamal v. Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal Peshawar and 2 others 2015 CLC 953,
Syed Mashooq Mohiuddin Shah v. Syed Fazul Ali Shah and 37 others 2014 CLC 1181,
Pakistan WAPDA Employees Pegham Union v. Member National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad and others 2014 SCMR 1676,
Amir Jamal and others v. Malik Zahoor and others 2011 SCMR 1023,
Syed Imran Shah and others v. Government of NWFP and others PLD 2004 SC 285,
MQM and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2014 CLC 335 ref.,
TNB Liberty Power Ltd. v. Director of Labour, Government of Sindh 2014 PLC 382,
Munawar Ali Khan v. Secretary, Land Utilization Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi 2014 YLR 1602,
Syed Bhais (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Local Government PLD 2012 Lah. 52,
Poineer Cricket Club v. Election Commissioner, PCB and others W.P. No. 30656 of 2013 rel.
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973,
Sports (Development and Control) Ordinance (XVI of 1962),
SRO No. 43(K.E)/2014 dated 10.07.2014,
Constitution of Pakistan Cricket Board
|
| Sections |
199,
3 & 4
|