| Case ID |
39912639-925c-46b9-94c8-f39bf20ed96d |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Review Petitions No.27 to 36 of 2005 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 17, 2005 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan, sitting as a bench comprised of Justices Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Khalil-Ur-Rehman Ramday, and M. Javed Buttar, reviewed the Civil Review Petitions Nos.27 to 36 of 2005 on March 17, 2005. The petitions, filed by Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills Ltd. and others, sought a review of the earlier judgments dated February 11, 2005, which were passed in various appeals and constitutional petitions. The core issue revolved around the imposition and subsequent reduction of a 50% rebate on electricity tariffs for industrialists established in the Gadoon Amazai Industrial Estate (GAIE) by WAPDA. The petitioners contended that the reduction of the rebate period lacked procedural validity and was not adequately pleaded in the original proceedings.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, affirming that the principle of res judicata barred the reopening of the same issues. The court emphasized that the questions raised had already been addressed and decided in the previous judgments, thereby preventing the petitioners from re-agitating the same matters. Despite the arguments presented by the petitioners' legal representatives, including claims of apparent errors and procedural oversights, the court maintained that the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 governed the proceedings and that the Civil Procedure Code was not applicable as per Order I, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules.
Furthermore, the court underscored the importance of legal finality and the necessity to uphold decisions to ensure certainty and stability within the judicial system. The doctrine of res judicata was highlighted as a fundamental principle that prevents parties from litigating issues that have already been conclusively settled. The court found no merit in the petitioners' claims of errors on the face of the record and thereby dismissed the petitions without ordering any costs. This decision reinforced the Supreme Court's stance on maintaining the integrity and finality of its judgments, ensuring that legal disputes are resolved conclusively without unnecessary repetition. |
| Summary |
In the pivotal case of Civil Review Petitions No.27 to 36 of 2005, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, led by Justices Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Khalil-Ur-Rehman Ramday, and M. Javed Buttar, rendered a decisive judgment on March 17, 2005. This case was brought forth by Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills Ltd. and other petitioners challenging the actions of the Chairman of the Area Electricity Board, WAPDA, specifically concerning the alteration of a 50% rebate on electricity tariffs granted to industrialists within the Gadoon Amazai Industrial Estate (GAIE).
The crux of the dispute lay in the reduction of the rebate period from an originally unspecified duration to five years, and subsequently to an even shorter period, which the petitioners argued was not properly pleaded or procedurally validated in prior hearings. They contended that this unilateral adjustment by WAPDA lacked the necessary legal framework and transparency, thereby violating principles of procedural fairness and legal predictability.
Central to the Supreme Court's decision was the invocation of the doctrine of res judicata, a legal principle that prevents the re-litigation of issues that have already been conclusively decided in previous judgments. The court meticulously analyzed the preceding judgments dated February 11, 2005, and determined that the issues raised in the review petitions had been previously addressed in various appeals and constitutional petitions. As such, reopening these matters would undermine the finality and stability of judicial decisions, which are foundational to a predictable and orderly legal system.
The court further emphasized that the proceedings before the Supreme Court are governed by its own set of rules—the Supreme Court Rules, 1980—and not by the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, as clarified under Order I, Rule 5. This delineation of procedural authority underscored the court's jurisdictional autonomy and its commitment to adhering to established judicial protocols. By dismissing the review petitions, the Supreme Court reinforced the imperative of legal finality and the containment of litigation to prevent endless legal battles that could drain resources and erode public trust in the judicial system.
Additionally, the judgment highlighted the broader implications of such decisions on the business community and regulatory bodies. By upholding the principle of res judicata, the court ensured that industrialists and entities like WAPDA operate within a framework of legal certainty, fostering an environment conducive to economic stability and growth. This decision serves as a critical reference point for future cases involving procedural disputes, regulatory compliance, and the application of fundamental legal doctrines in Pakistan's judicial landscape.
For legal practitioners, policymakers, and stakeholders in the industrial sector, this case underscores the importance of thorough and precise legal pleadings, the adherence to procedural norms, and the recognition of the judiciary's role in maintaining the balance between regulatory oversight and the rights of entities operating under its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's unwavering stance in this case not only resolved the immediate disputes but also set a precedent for handling similar legal challenges with clarity and decisiveness, ensuring that justice is administered efficiently and equitably. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
WAPDA,
Peshawar High Court,
PESCO,
Gadoon Textile Mills Ltd.,
Electricity Board
|
| Judges |
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY,
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY,
M. JAVED BUTTAR
|
| Lawyers |
Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
Abdul Latif Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court,
Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb, Advocate Supreme Court,
Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (C.R.P. Nos.27 to 31 of 2005),
Wasim Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (C.R.P. Nos. 32 to 34 of 2005),
Muhammad Asif, Advocate Supreme Court,
M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (C.R.P. Nos. 35 and 36 of 2005),
Nemo for Respondents
|
| Petitioners |
others,
Messrs GADOON TEXTILE MILLS LTD.
|
| Respondents |
others,
CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, WAPDA, (PESCO), PESHAWAR
|
| Citations |
2005 SLD 723,
2005 PLD 430
|
| Other Citations |
Dost Muhammad Khan v. Mst. Bibi Rukia PLD 1986 SC 353 rel.,
Gadoon Textile Mills v. WAPDA (1997 SCMR 641),
Mubarik Ali v. Fazal Muhammad PLD 1995 SC 564,
Mohanlal v. Benoy Kishna AIR 1953 SC 65,
Sobhag Singh v. Jai Singh AIR 1968 SC 1328 rel.,
Ardeshir Cowasjee v. Karachi Building Control Authority 1999 SCMR 2883,
Amanul Mulk v. Ghafoor ur Rehman 1997 SCMR 1796,
Hafiz Noor Muhammad and others v. Ghulam Rasul and others 1999 SCMR 705 ref.,
Abdul Ghafoor v. Chief Settlement Commissioner 1985 SCMR 464,
Adalat Khan v. Mst. Begum Bibi 1991 SCMR 1381,
Muhammad Sharif v. Inayat Ullah 1996 SCMR 145,
Khushi Muhammad v. Province of Punjab 1999 SCMR 1633,
Province of Punjab v. Malik Ibrahim and Sons 2000 SCMR 1172,
Fecto Belarus Tractors Ltd., v. Pakistan 2001 PTD 1829,
Managing Director, SSGC Ltd., v. Ghulam Abbas PLD 2003 SC 724,
Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs v. Aziz-ud-Din Industries Ltd., PLD 1970 SC 439,
M.Y. Electronics Industries (Pvt) Ltd., v. Government of Pakistan 1998 SCMR 1404,
Friends Textile Mills v. Government of Pakistan 2004 SCMR 346,
Prem Narain v. Ram Charan (AIR 1932 Privy Council 50),
Sheoparasan Singh and others v. Ramnandan Prasad Narayan Singh and others,
Kalipade de and others v. Dwijapada Das and others (2),
Mubarik Ali v. Fazal Muhammad (PLD 1995 SC 564),
Abdul Majid's case PLD 1982 SC 146,
Abdul Ghaffar-Abdul Rehman v. Asghar Ali (PLD 1998 SC 363)
|
| Laws Involved |
Supreme Court Rules, 1980,
Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
O.I, R.5,
O. XXXIII,
R.XXVI,
Art. 188
|