Utility stores windup writ |The court dismissed the petitions, ruling that the government's decision to wind up the Utility Stores Corporation (USC) is a policy matter not subject to judicial review, as it does not violate fundamental rights.

عدالت نے یوٹیلیٹی اسٹورز کارپوریشن (USC) کی بندش کے حکومتی فیصلے کو پالیسی معاملہ قرار دیتے ہوئے درخواستیں مسترد کر دیں، کیونکہ اس فیصلے میں بنیادی حقوق کی خلاف ورزی نہیں ہوئی۔

یہ آرڈر شیٹ لاہور ہائی کورٹ میں دو درخواستوں کے متعلق ہے جو یوٹیلیٹی اسٹورز کارپوریشن (USC) کے معاملے میں دائر کی گئی تھیں۔

آرڈر کے اہم نکات:

1. درخواستوں کا جائزہ:

W.P. No. 50232 of 2024: درخواست گزار نے USC کو بند کرنے کے اقدامات اور ہدایات کو چیلنج کیا، اور کہا کہ یہ ایک منافع بخش اور اہم ادارہ ہے جسے بند نہیں کیا جانا چاہیے۔

W.P. No. 51306 of 2024: درخواست گزار نے USC کی بندش کو روکنے اور ادارے کے آپریشنل نظام اور ملازمین کی حالت کو برقرار رکھنے کا مطالبہ کیا۔

2. USC کا پس منظر: 1971 میں قائم کیا گیا، USC بنیادی اشیاء کو سبسڈی پر فراہم کرتا ہے۔

3. حکومتی اقدامات:

14.06.2024 کو ایک نوٹیفکیشن کے ذریعے ایک ہائی پاورڈ کمیٹی تشکیل دی گئی تھی تاکہ وفاقی حکومت کے اداروں کا جائزہ لیا جا سکے۔

USC کو 07.08.2024 اور 16.08.2024 کو بند کرنے کی ہدایات جاری کی گئیں۔

4. درخواست گزار کے دلائل:

USC خود کفیل ہے اور اسے حکومت کی فنڈنگ کی ضرورت نہیں ہے۔

کمپنیز ایکٹ، 2017 کے تحت بند کرنے کے طریقہ کار پر عمل نہیں کیا گیا۔

12,000 ملازمین کے حقوق متاثر ہو سکتے ہیں۔

5. حکومت کا موقف:

ابھی تک ملازمین کے خلاف کوئی منفی اقدام نہیں اٹھایا گیا۔

USC کو بند کرنے کا فیصلہ ایک پالیسی معاملہ ہے جس پر عدالتوں کا جائزہ نہیں لیا جا سکتا۔

عدالت کا کردار صرف قانونی حیثیت تک محدود ہے، پالیسی کی مناسبیت پر نہیں۔

6. عدالت کا فیصلہ:

عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا کہ حکومت کا USC کو بند کرنے کا فیصلہ پالیسی معاملہ ہے جس پر عدالتی مداخلت نہیں ہو سکتی۔

ابھی تک بنیادی حقوق کی خلاف ورزی کا کوئی معاملہ نہیں ہے۔

دونوں درخواستیں مسترد کر دی گئیں کیونکہ ان میں کوئی ایسی قانونی خلاف ورزی نہیں تھی جس پر عدالتی مداخلت کی ضرورت ہو۔

نتیجہ: عدالت نے دونوں درخواستوں کو مسترد کر دیا، یہ کہتے ہوئے کہ USC کے مستقبل پر پالیسی فیصلے عدالتی جائزے کے دائرے سے باہر ہیں، جب تک کہ یہ بنیادی حقوق یا قانونی دفعات کی خلاف ورزی نہ کریں۔

Form No.HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W. P. No.50232 of 2024

Muzammal Rafiq

Versus

Federation of Pakistan, etc.

S.No. of order/

Proceeding

Date of order/

Proceeding

Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or counsel,

where necessary.

04.09.2024

Mr. Asif Shahzad Sahi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ch. Imtiaz Elahi, Deputy Attorney General for

Pakistan.

M/s Hamza Sheikh and Muhammad Mansoor Ali Sial,

Assistant Attorneys General for Pakistan.

M/s Afrasiab Mohal, Adeel Khawar Nahra and

Muhammad Ali Butt, Advocates

for the

respondents/Utility Store Corporation.

This order shall dispose of the titled petition and

W.P.No.51306 of 2024 as common questions of law

and facts are involved therein.

Through the titled petition, the petitioner has

made the following prayer: -

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the

instant writ petition may kindly be accepted,

impugned Act/letters dated 07.08.2024 &

19.08.2024 issued by the respondents No.1 & 2

requiring the respondents No.2 to 12 to share plans

for winding up a profitable entity (Utility Stores

Corporation of Pakistan Private Limited) under the

vague of restricting/transformation of State Owned

Enterprises (SEP) may very kindly be declared as

illegal, unlawful void ab-initio, nullity in the eye of

law, violative to fundamental rights of the

petitioner / employees of Utility Stores Corporation

and general public at large, without lawful

authority and of no legal effect and the same may

be graciously be set aside and reversed and the

respondents may very kindly be restrained from

interfering in smooth functioning of Utility Stores

Corporation of Pakistan, in any manner,

whatsoever, in the interest of justice.

W.P.No.50232 of 2024 &

W.P.No.51306 of 2024

In W.P.No.51306 of 2024, following prayer has been

made: -

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the

instant writ petition may very kindly be accepted,

and acts of the respondents No.1, 2 & 8 to 13 may

very kindly be declared as illegal, unlawful, void

ab-initio, nullity in the eye of law, violation of

fundamental rights of the petitioner / employees of

Utility Stores Corporation and general public at

large, without lawful authority and of no legal

effect and the same may very graciously be set

aside and that the respondents No.3, 8 to 14 are

directed to continue operational systems of BISP

under PMP 40, and maintained services / salaries

of the employments / employers of corporation and

secure the exchequer of government organization,

in the interest of justice.”

The Utility Stores Corporation (‘USC’) is a state

owned enterprise established in the year 1971 to

provide basic commodities to the general public at

prices lower than the open market. However, on

14.06.2024 through a notification issued by the Cabinet

Division, Government of Pakistan (impugned herein) a

High-Powered Committee comprising nine members

including the Chairman was constituted for a detailed

review and analysis on the basis of initial work done by

the earlier committee for reducing the size of the

Federal Government. On 07.08.2024 an office

memorandum (impugned herein) was issued by the

Finance Division to the Secretary, Ministry of

Industries and Production to share restructuring/

transformation plans of the entities which were declared

as strategic or essential. Thereafter, the Prime Minister

of Pakistan in the meeting of rightsizing of the Federal

Government on 16.08.2024 passed a direction that the

USC should be wound up and an alternate arrangement

should be explored which might include cash transfer to

the recipients. Hence, these petitions.

W.P.No.50232 of 2024 &

W.P.No.51306 of 2024

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

the USC being a state owned entity registered under

prevailing laws of Pakistan has its own vigilance

system to snub any sort of pilferage or malpractice and

is self-sustaining organization which has never taken a

single penny from the Government to run its business

including disbursement of salaries to staff rather it

generates revenue for the Government so no question

for winding up this profitable entity arises. He

maintains that subsidy allowed by the Government is

passed on to the general public by the USC in a

systematic and transparent manner. According to him,

procedure for winding up of a state owned enterprise

has been provided in section 293 of the Companies Act,

2017 which has not been adopted properly. He further

contends that as many as 12000 employees have been

working in USC, half of which are either on daily

wages or contract basis who cannot be absorbed in any

other department/organization. He adds that the

Rightsizing Committee earlier decided to privatize the

USC but now contrary to that has illegally decided to

wind it up without adopting any legal course.

According to him the Board of Directors of the USC

has also passed a resolution by virtue of which the USC

has been declared a profitable and essential state owned

enterprise. He further adds that if the Government does

not provide food subsidy the USC will run its operation

on commercial model after restructuring.

The USC has filed report and parawise comments

wherein contention of the petitioner has been supported.

Conversely, learned Law Officer appearing on

behalf of the Federation of Pakistan contends that no

adverse order has been passed against the employees of

W.P.No.50232 of 2024 &

W.P.No.51306 of 2024

the USC, therefore, this petition is pre-mature. He

further contends that decision of the Government to

wind up the USC is a policy matter which cannot be

assailed as the Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under

Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of

Pakistan, 1973(‘Constitution’) have refrained from

interfering in this domain. He adds that the matter in

question entails factual inquiry which exercise cannot

be undertaken in constitutional petition.

Arguments of both the sides have been heard.

Earlier, the low-income people were being

provided basic commodities through the USC and now

the Government, as per minutes of meeting of

Committee on rightsizing of the Federal Government

attached with the petitions, has decided to explore

alternate arrangement, which is a matter of policy

involving complicated economic factors.

The scope of judicial review of Government’s

policy is now well-settled. The Courts cannot assume

the role of Appellate Authority to examine the

rightness, suitability and appositeness of a policy. The

scope of judicial review while examining a policy of the

Government is to see whether it encroaches upon

fundamental rights of the citizens or violates any

provision of the Constitution or any statute.

10. The Courts cannot interfere with the policy either

on the ground that it is erroneous or that a better, fairer

or wiser alternative is available. The duty of the Court

is to confine itself to the question of legality and its

concern should be whether a decision making authority

exceeded its powers or committed an error of law. The

policies of the Government may not remain stagnant,

rather with the change in economic climate, the wisdom

W.P.No.50232 of 2024 &

W.P.No.51306 of 2024

and the manner for the Government to run commercial

projects may require reconsideration. A policy might

have been in the public interest at a point of time,

however, the same cannot be considered so at some

other point of time. Therefore, any decision of the

Government that it cannot run the Corporation

departmentally or any other form is not justiciable.

Indeed Parliament is the forum for debates on questions

involving political economy and not the Court. In

support of above propositions, reliance is placed on the

cases of Dr. Akhtar Hussain Khan and others vs.

Federation of Pakistan and others (201 2 SCMR 455),

Watan Party through President vs. Federation of

Pakistan through Cabinet Committee of Privatization,

Islamabad and others (PLD 2006 Supreme Court

697), Directorate of Film Festivals & Ors. vs. Gaurav

Ashwin Jain & Ors. (AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1640)

and BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) vs. Union of

India and others (AIR 2002 Supreme Court 350).

11. The petitioner has not been able to make out a

case that decision of the Government to wind up USC is

illegal or opposed to the Constitution. Although the

Government’s decision may have an impact on the

employees’ rights in future upon implementation of the

policy decision, who may avail the remedies in

accordance with law for violation of their legal rights, if

any, before the concerned forum. As far as this case is

concerned, since no adverse action has so far been

taken against employees of the USC, no writ can be

issued against the Government to prevent its policy

decision. It is well-settled that a writ lies when some

legal right of any party is infringed which clearly is not

the case here. Reliance in this regard is placed on the

W.P.No.50232 of 2024 &

W.P.No.51306 of 2024

cases of Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif vs.

Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of

Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and

others (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 583) and Union of

India & Anr. vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (AIR 2007

Supreme Court 906). Needless to mention here that

for access to the information the petitioner may exhaust

remedies under the Right of Access to Information Act,

2017.

12. In view of the foregoing reasons, both the

petitions filed by the petitioner are dismissed for being

devoid of any merit.

(RAHEEL KAMRAN)

JUDGE

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

JUDGE

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.