๐๐ฑ-๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ซ ๐๐๐ง๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐๐ซ ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐๐ (๐) ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐๐ซ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ ๐๐๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ: ๐๐
In a recent judgment, authored by Honorable Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah of the Supreme Court, has held that Article 199 (4) of the Constitution is very clear which states that a High Court cannot pass an interim order where the issue involves prejudice or impediment to the public work or harm public interest or property or it may impede the collection of public revenue unless the prescribed law officer (Attorney General) is put on notice and an opportunity of hearing is afforded to him. The said provisionsย further constrict the jurisdiction of the High Courts in passing the interim orders on such matters by stating that the Court shall give its reasoning in writing and ensure that the order it is suspending falls within its jurisdiction andย it does not have such an adverse effects as aforementioned.
The Supreme Court further held that this Court is mindful of the fact that the interim orders passed by a High Court must not be interfered with ordinarily, but there are certain exceptions to this general rule. They are; if the interim order is such a perverse in nature which might cause grave injustice, which is without jurisdiction orย which has been passed in clear violation of law, only then it becomes necessary to interfere with such interim orders, otherwise not.
The Court at the end held that the case at bar is one of such case where the interim order has been passed without law and that too without determining whether the High Court had jurisdiction. Hence, it was set aside.
c.p._3472_2023
