| Case ID |
2e854d0e-3d93-4b8a-ab27-198cc7bc7b52 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Petition No. D-1901 of 1999 |
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
Dec 22, 1999 |
| Decision |
DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD, JUSTICE and ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE of the Sindh High Court delivered a comprehensive judgment addressing the inefficiencies and administrative challenges faced by the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESAT). Recognizing the petition as a public interest litigation under Article 199 of the 1973 Constitution, the court emphasized the critical role of judicial activism in ensuring the effective enforcement of legal duties and the promotion of public interest. The judges highlighted numerous complaints against CESAT, including lack of punctuality, frequent absences, inconsistent hearing schedules, and delays in issuing orders. To address these issues, the court mandated CESAT members to adhere to strict operational guidelines, such as conducting daily hearings from 9:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., reserving at least one day a week for judgment writing, and ensuring timely communication of orders to applicants and their counsel. Additionally, the court underscored the importance of maintaining the separation of powers as prescribed by the Constitution, recommending that future appointments to appellate tribunals be supervised by the judicial organ to preserve judicial independence and integrity. By implementing these directives, the court aimed to enhance the efficiency and reliability of CESAT, thereby restoring public confidence in the judicial system and ensuring timely dispensation of justice. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Civil Petition No. D-1901 of 1999, heard on December 22, 1999, the Sindh High Court addressed critical inefficiencies within the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESAT). The petitioner, PHILIPS ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES OF PAKISTAN LTD., challenged the administrative shortcomings of CESAT, highlighting pervasive issues such as lack of punctuality, frequent absences, inconsistent hearing schedules, and significant delays in issuing judgments and orders. Represented by Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem, the petitioner sought judicial intervention to enforce expeditious justice and ensure the effective functioning of CESAT.
Presiding over the case were Justices Dr. Ghous Muhammad and Zahid Kurban Alavi, who meticulously evaluated the grievances presented. The court recognized the petition as a public interest litigation under Article 199 of the 1973 Constitution, underscoring the necessity of judicial activism in upholding the rule of law and safeguarding public interest. Drawing parallels from various international case laws, including significant judgments from India and the United Kingdom, the judges emphasized the evolving nature of public interest litigation and its paramount importance in addressing systemic inefficiencies.
The judgment meticulously outlined the deficiencies within CESAT, citing complaints from lawyers and litigants about the tribunal's operational lapses. Specific issues included the absence of a fixed schedule for hearings, prolonged delays in disposing of appeals, and a general lack of accountability among tribunal members. The court also highlighted the detrimental impact of these inefficiencies on the public's trust in the judicial system and the administration of justice.
In response to these findings, the court issued a series of directives aimed at overhauling CESAT's operational framework. Key mandates included:
1. **Structured Hearing Schedule:** CESAT members were instructed to conduct daily hearings from 9:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., ensuring a consistent and reliable schedule.
2. **Judgment Writing Day:** Establishing at least one day a week, preferably Friday, exclusively for writing judgments and handling administrative tasks, thereby streamlining workflow.
3. **Transparent Scheduling:** Implementing a system where the daily roster of hearings is posted by noon each day, providing clarity and predictability for all parties involved.
4. **Timely Communication:** Ensuring that orders on injunctions and other applications are communicated to applicants and their counsel within a day or two of the hearing.
5. **Expedited Appeals:** Mandating that appeals be decided within six months, especially in cases where tax recoveries are restrained.
6. **Enhanced Departmental Participation:** Requiring the presence of departmental representatives during hearings to prevent unnecessary adjournments and ensure active participation.
7. **Vetting of Tribunal Members:** Directing CESAT to collaborate with senior lawyers and relevant bar associations to finalize operational rules, enhancing the tribunal's credibility and efficiency.
Furthermore, the court delved into the broader constitutional principles governing the separation of powers. It reiterated the doctrine of trichotomy of powers as enshrined in Article 175 of the 1973 Constitution, emphasizing that legislative, executive, and judicial branches must operate independently to prevent the abuse of power. The judgment pointed out that the executive's role in appointing tribunal members should be subject to judicial oversight to maintain the judiciary's integrity and independence.
The court also referenced several precedents to bolster its directives, including cases like Darshan Masih v. State, which marked the advent of public interest litigation in Pakistan, and various judgments from Indian and British jurisdictions that advocate for a dynamic and responsive judicial system. These references underscored the judiciary's role in adapting to societal changes and ensuring that legal institutions function effectively to deliver justice.
In conclusion, the Sindh High Court's judgment in Civil Petition No. D-1901 of 1999 serves as a pivotal moment in reinforcing the accountability and efficiency of administrative tribunals in Pakistan. By addressing the systemic issues within CESAT and advocating for judicial oversight in tribunal appointments, the court has set a precedent for enhancing the quality of justice and maintaining public trust in the legal system. This case not only rectifies immediate administrative shortcomings but also reinforces the foundational principles of judicial independence and the separation of powers, ensuring that the judiciary remains a robust guardian of the Constitution and public interest. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Sindh High Court,
High Court,
Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Federal Government of Pakistan,
PAKISTAN,
Judiciary,
Legislature,
PHILIPS ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES OF PAKISTAN LTD.,
Executive,
Federal Secretary Law, Islamabad,
Chairman, CESAT,
Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal at Karachi
|
| Judges |
Dr. Ghous Muhammad,
Zahid Kurban Alavi
|
| Lawyers |
Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem,
S. Tariq Ali,
Arshad Malik,
Mir Fawad
|
| Petitioners |
PHILIPS ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES OF PAKISTAN LTD.
|
| Respondents |
PAKISTAN and others
|
| Citations |
2000 SLD 595,
2000 PTCL 515,
2000 YLR 2724
|
| Other Citations |
Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 416,
State v. Ziaur Rehman PLD 1973 SC 49,
Shehla Zia v. WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693,
People's Union for Democratic Right v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1473,
S.P. Gupta and others v. President of India and others AIR 1982 SC 149,
Supreme Court Bar Association v. State of U.P. 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 602,
Dr. V.L. Wadehra v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 594,
Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 14,
Dr. Upendra Bakhsi v. State of U.P. (1983) 2 SCC 308,
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P. AIR 1985 SC 652,
Subhash Kumar v. State of Behar AIR 1991 SC 420,
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212,
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1996) 4 SCC 750,
Buffalo Traders Welfare Association v. Manika Gandhi (1996) 11 SCC 35,
Attorney-General v. Independent Broadcasting Authority (1973) 1 All ER 689,
R. v. GLC (1976) 3 All ER 184,
Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers (1977) 3 All ER 70,
Cooks v. Southend Borough Council (1990) 2 WLR 61,
R. v. Bar Council Ex parte Persival (1990) 3 All ER 137 (QBD),
R. v. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, The World Development Improvement Ltd. (1995) 1 WLR 386,
Dr. Moinuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh and others (1997) 15 BLD 1,
Muntizma Committee v. Director Katchi Abadis, Sindh PLD 1992 Kar. 54,
Mian Fazal Din v. The Lahore Improvement Trust 21 DLR (SC) 225 = PLD 1969 SC 223,
Qalandro v. The State 1997.MLD 1632,
Duport Steel Ltd. v. Sirs (1980) 1 All ER 529,
Dr. Nalla Thampy Thera v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 74,
Afsaruddin Bhuiya v. Wazed Ali Khan PLD 1953 Dacca 209,
Malik Fateh Khan v. Najeebullah Khan PLD 1957 Lah.631,
Shell Co. of Australia Ltd. v. Federation Commission of Taxation 1931 AC 275,
Huddart, Parker & Co. Moorehead 8 CLR 330,
Nirman Singh v. Thakur Lai Budra Partabl Narain Singh AIR 1926 PC 100,
Muhammad Saeed v. Election Petition Tribunal, West Pakistan and others PLD 1957 SC (Pak.) 91,
Muliji Manilal Karadar v. State of Maharashtra 1963 PTD 811,
Jamal Din v. Haji Muhammad Aslam PLD 1965 Lah. 503,
Mst. Gaman v. Taj Din PLD 1968 Lah. 987,
Sahibzada Masood Ahmed v. Mian Muhammad Saeed Sehgal PLD 1958 Lah.153,
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. Pakistan PLD 1993 SC 473,
Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 16, p.503,
Government of Balochistan v. Azizullah Memon PLD 1993 SC 31,
Government of Sindh v. Sharaf Faridi PLD 1994 SC 107,
Dias on Jurisprudence, 5th Edn., p.102,
Darshan Masih v. State PLD 1990 SC 513,
Mushtaq Ali v. Government of Sindh PLD 1998 Kar. 416,
Ardeshir Cowasjee v. KBCA 1999 SC 2883,
Al-Jehad Trust PLD 1996 SC 324,
Abdul Rahim v. UBL PLD 1997 Kar. 62,
Nazar Ali v. Brig. Shahid Aziz 1987 PCLJ 1435,
Baghu Singh v. Burrakur Coal Co. AIR 1966 Calcutta 504,
Iftikhar Ahmed v. MCB PLD 1984 Lah. 69,
Jia Ram Mastung v. Kundana Wanti PLD 1987 Quetta 91,
R.M. Seshadri v. Second Additional Income-tax Officer (1954) 25 ITR 400,
D.H. Satyana Raya Numurti v. ITAT, Madras (1958) 33 ITR 123,
Mohammad Saeed v. Election Petition Tribunal, West Pakistan and others PLD 1957 SC (Pak.) 91,
Mir Rehman Khan v. Sardar Asadullah Khan PLD 1983 Quetta 52,
Abdul Qayyum v. Government of Punjab 1983 PLC (C.S.) 948
|
| Laws Involved |
Customs Act, 1969
|
| Sections |
194
|