TERENCE J SIGAMONY

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday turned down Pakistan Sugar Mills Association’s (PSMA’s) Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) challenging a single bench’s verdict.

A division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb announced the verdict, which they had reserved on July 24th after hearing the arguments of all the parties.

The single bench of Chief Justice Athar Minallah had dismissed the PSMA’s petition against the report of the Sugar Inquiry Commission (SIC) on June 20th.

The bench dismissed the appellants’ stance that on account of non-publication of notifications for constitution of the Inquiry Commission until after the said Commission had submitted report to be declared coram non judice or without lawful authority.

The bench, however, expressed its dismay over the scant regard that the public functionaries in the Interior Division as well as the Cabinet Division have for their responsibilities under the Rules of Business and the 2017 Act, and for not having published the notifications constituting the Inquiry Commission in the official gazette soon after the decisions were taken by the Cabinet to constitute the Inquiry Commission.

Regarding not moving summary by the Cabinet Division, the IHC said under Article 199 of Constitution the High Court intervenes where justice, equity and good conscience require such intervention.

“It is with these principles in mind that we have refrained from invalidating the decision of the Cabinet to constitute an Inquiry Commission on the ground that the summary for the Cabinet was moved by the [Interior] Ministry in whose domain the subject of the 2017 Act did not lay,” the court said.

The bench did not agree with the contention of the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) that the judgment in the case of “Mustafa Impex vs Government of Pakistan” treats inadvertence, or negligence, or incompetence as a ground for condoning a breach in the observance of the Rules of Business.

The AGP had submitted that since the convener of the Inquiry Committee constituted by the prime minister was the director general, FIA, and since under the Rules of Business the administrative control over the FIA lies with the Interior Division, that is why the summary was moved by the Interior Division.

The judgment observed that the report of the Inquiry Commission in which observations adverse to the appellants had been made are, by no means, conclusive or sacrosanct.

Such a report cannot be used as an instrument of condemnation against whom allegations have been made therein.

All those against whom allegations have been made in the report will be presumed to be innocent unless such allegations are substantiated in the proceedings before the relevant regulatory/statutory or anti-corruption bodies.

The court further said, “Since the TORs for the Inquiry Committee were the same as the ones for the Inquiry Commission save two additional TORs, and since there were no definitive findings given by the Inquiry Committee against the appellants in its report, we are of the view that the members of the Inquiry Commission were not predisposed against the appellants and, therefore, the report of the Inquiry Commission cannot be quashed on the ground of bias.”

It was the contentions of the Sugar Mills Association that the Inquiry Commission had not been lawfully constituted as per Section 3(1) and (2) of the 2017 Act.

They contended that even though Section 3(1) of the 2017 Act empowered the Federal Government to constitute an Inquiry Commission “by notification in the official gazette” and Section 3(2) of the said Act required the Federal Government to appoint members of the Inquiry Commission “by notification in the official gazette,” such notifications were not published in the official gazette until after the Inquiry Commission had submitted its report that between 16.03.2020 and 21.05.2020, no notification had been published in the official gazette in accordance with the requirements of Section 3(1) and (2) of the 2017 Act.

The mills had argued that the report of the Inquiry Commission was accusatory to the appellants; that although there were 82 sugar mills in Pakistan, notices were issued by the Inquiry Commission on 06 May 2020 only to 10 sugar mills.

It was also the contention of the appellants that the report of the Inquiry Commission was tainted with bias since three members of the Inquiry Commission had pre-conceived notions and were pre-disposed against the appellants.