The Supreme Court on Tuesday reaffirmed its order declaring that the 8,068 acres of land in the Margalla Hills belonged to the protected national park and not the military. It also withdrew the favour extended to the Monal restaurant in providing it with an alternate place to run its business after its contemptuous behaviour came to light.
This was directed as a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, rejected all review petitions filed against itsits earlier order on Tuesday. It held that all intra-court appeals against the past judgement of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) judgement (which had been challenged before the top court) would be rendered ineffective.
"Once a case is decided by this court, its decision is binding on all courts subordinate to it in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Therefore, if there are any intra-court appeals pending adjudication or any other case before the high court or any other court with regard to the matters attended to in this court's judgment, the same will be binding thereon, and resultantly the said intra-court appeals will be rendered infructuous," read the 13-page judgement authored by CJP Isa. The court went on to reject all review petitions filed by Monal restaurant and others against the top court's order, which declared all commercial activities in the Margalla National Park land as illegal.
Several intra-court appeals had been filed against the Islamabd High Court's order on the Margalla Hills and the commercial and non-commercial activities underway there, including by the owners of the restaurants and hotels, and the defence ministry. These appeals are pending before a division bench of the IHC. In view of these court observations, these ICAs have become infructuous, striking a big blow for defence authorities as well.
CJP Isa, while rejecting Monal restaurant's review petition, noted that petitioner Luqman Ali Afzal, in the presence of his counsel, had voluntarily agreed to vacate the restaurant situated in the protected national park.
"The review of a consent order cannot be sought, yet surprisingly this is what is sought."
Taimoor Aslam, who represented petitioner Afzal, stated that the short order and the detailed judgment have rendered the intra-court appeals pending in the Islamabad High Court redundant.
"Afzal had no legal right to continue with the possession of the land and his status is no better than that of a trespasser," the court noted, adding, "And, running a restaurant, Monal, in the protected national park, like those being run by the owner of La Montana and Gloria Jeans was in total disregard of the provisions of the Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979. The operators of these restaurants, and those who permitted them to operate, disregarded the integrity of the national park; ravaged its trees and flora and displaced and disturbed the endemic bird and animal life."
"The natural environment of the national park was also adversely affected, and its resultant benefits, including as a catchment area for rainfall and the recharge of springs and streams. An astronomical environmental cost was also borne by the public and will continue to be borne by future generations."
The court noted that the owners of the Monal and La Montana restaurants, as well as Gloria Jeans cafe, had voluntarily offered to vacate the land of the national park in their possession within three months and that the court had appreciated this gesture of theirs and recorded this in their June 11 order. The court further noted that the said undertakings to vacate the premises were given in the presence of their respective counsel, but they now want to resile therefrom.
"Making a mockery of solemn undertakings and to render them meaningless cannot be permitted, and those doing so must suffer the consequences. Therefore, we have been persuaded by their contemptuous behaviour and misconceived contentions to review our said short order and detailed judgment and to withdraw/delete."
The court, in its earlier order, stated that the counsel for Monal had submitted that the CDA might give them preference in leasing/allotting/licensing premises/land for the running of restaurants where it is permissible, as their businesses will be affected.
"CDA chairman, present in court, stated that he will designate an officer to consider the request and if there are premises/land available for this purpose, and if the law permits, preference will be given to those who are voluntarily vacating restaurants from within the national park," the court noted.
Regarding a review petition filed by a retired brigadier who felt aggrieved by the court's remarks about his conduct, the order noted that Falak Naz elected to attend the court as a legal advisor to the Defence Ministry of the federal government by upending the office of the Attorney-General for Pakistan, and tried to justify the actions of the Directorate.
"He also made untenable excuses for the officers of the Directorate who were not complying with the order of this court directing the production of the file, which would have revealed on whose instructions the purported lease agreement in favour of Afzal was executed. By his own actions, Falak Naz demonstrated that his loyalty was not with the Ministry of Defence and the federal government which had employed him," the court observed.
"Falak Naz also remained intransigent in his understanding that the Directorate was not a separate legal entity but was a component of the Ministry of Defence, which in turn, was a part of the federal government. This court could have initiated contempt proceedings but showed restraint, which fact Falak Naz did not appreciate, and instead has taken umbrage to be reminded that his loyalty should not be with the Directorate and to perform his duties by ensuring that the law of Pakistan is upheld by all," the order stated.