BEFORE THE HONORABLE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT,

ISLAMABAD

ICA No. -----/2023

In

WP No. 4657/2022

National Assembly Secretariat through Mr. Muhammad Farooq, Deputy

Secretary (Litigation) National Assembly Secretariat, Parliament House,
Islamabad

-------Appellant

Versus

1. Mumtaz Khan, Son of Sakhi Muhammad, Losar Sharfoo, Madni

Masjid, Post Office Wah Cantt, Tehsil Texila

2. Mrs. Majida Noureen Abbasi,

3. Mrs. Sobia Ahmed Faraz

4. Prime Minister etc.

-------- Respondents

INTRA COURT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE LAW

REFORMS ORDINANCE, 1973 AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED 13-10-2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD
Respectfully Sheweth:

1. That the addresses of the parties are correctly mentioned in the

memo of appeal which are sufficient for the purpose of the service

to be issued by this Honorable Court.

2. That the brief facts forming background of the matter are that the

respondent No. 1 instituted a writ petition thereby challenging the

directions/ recommendations dated 03-10-2022, 27-10-2022 and

07-12-2022 issued by the Special Committee on Affected

Employees” (hereinafter referred to as “the Special Committee’)

to the Ministry of Federal Education & Professional Training. The

Special Committee was constituted in pursuance of a Motion

adopted by the National Assembly on 10th October 2022. The said

writ petition was clubbed with several other petitions (some of them

were carrying altogether different subject matters) and decided through

a consolidated judgment dated 13-10-2023 (hereinafter referred

to as “the impugned judgment”) passed by the learned single

Judge.

Copy of impugned judgment dated 13-10-2023

passed by the learned single Judge of this
Honorable Court is annexed as Annexure-A
3. That feeling aggrieved of the impugned judgment, the appellant

prefers the instant Intra Court Appeal interalia on the following

grounds:

GROUNDS

A. That it is submitted with respect that the impugned judgment is

legally not sustainable inasmuch as the same has been rendered

interalia in violation of Article 69 of the Constitution of Islamic

Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution

of Pakistan”). The judgment under challenged has also been passed

in negation to the rules i.e. 28, 29, 119, 227, 201(4), 244-B and 245

of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National

Assembly, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2007 Rules”). The

judgment has also attacked the concept of trichotomy of powers

which is the hallmark of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Honorable

Single Judge, in purported exercise of judicial review, with respect,

transgressed the jurisdiction conferred upon him under Article 199

of the Constitution of Pakistan.

B. That the learned Judge in chambers, it is submitted with respect,

erred in holding that the Special Committee could have only made

recommendations to the National Assembly. While making such

observations, the learned Judge discussed the powers of the

Standing Committees as mentioned in the 2007 Rules altogether

ignoring that the subject matter of the constitution petitions (decided

 by the learned single Bench) did not have any relevance to the powers

of the Standing Committees. What was relevant for the learned Judge

was the powers of the Special Committee as conferred upon it by the

three Circulars dated 12-10-2022, 17-10-2022 and 04-11-2022

issued by the National Assembly Secretariat. These Circulars were

issued on the strength of a Motion adopted by the National Assembly

on 10-10-2022. The learned Judge, instead of making discussion on

the contents of the said Circulars and the Motion adopted by the

National Assembly, merely focused on the powers of the Standing

Committees and decided the matter. The Judgement under challenge

thus can not sustain being passed on the basis of entirely irrelevant

discussion.

Copy of Circulars dated 12-10-2022, 17-10-2022

and 04-11-2022 are annexed as Annexure-B, C
and D

C. That while rendering the judgment under challenge, the learned

single Judge, with respect, ignored from consideration the ToRs

mentioned in the Circular dated 04-11-2022. The said Circular

interalia empowered the Special Committee to issue directions/

Show Cause Notices to any department in case of necessity. It is

worth mentioning here that the impugned judgment has not set-

aside any of the said Circulars. While these Circulars were holding

the field, the Special Committee constituted thereunder was well

within its powers to exercise any of the powers enumerated therein.

The consequence of the impugned judgment, as one can see, is that

 all the said Circulars are still intact but the recommendations/

directions framed/ issued by the Special Committee under the said

Circulars have been surprisingly reversed. The learned Judge, it is

respectfully submitted, could not have passed any such judgment at

least until the legal instrument(s) pursuant to which the powers

were exercised by the Special Committee were holding the field.

D. That it is submitted with respect that while rendering the impugned

judgment, the learned Judge ignored that the Special Committee

acted strictly in accordance with the Circulars, the Motion adopted

by the National Assembly on 10-10-2022 and the 2007 Rules. No

illegality/ irregularity whatsoever was committed by the Special

Committee. As submitted in the preceding paragraph, so long as the

legal instruments were holding the field, the powers exercised by

the legal entity (Special Committee) created thereunder could not

have been declared as unlawful.

E. That in paragraph No. 18 of the impugned judgment, the Honorable

Judge observed that “the committee had admittedly trespassed its

mandate and made certain observations against senior officials by

issuing directions to issue Show Cause….”. The expression

“admittedly” used by the Honorable Judge does not identify the

maker of such admission before the Honorable Judge. It is submitted

with utmost respect that the appellant was the only contesting

respondent before the learned Judge and during the course of

 proceedings, no such admission was ever made by any of the officials

of the Assembly or the counsel representing the appellant. Fact of

the matter is that throughout the proceedings, the counsel for the

Assembly not only defended the powers exercised by the Special

Committee but also took objection on the maintainability of the

constitution petitions filed in the High Court. The impugned

judgment, it is added with respect, was thus delivered contrary to

the material on record, the written arguments submitted on behalf

of the National Assembly Secretariat and the contentions put

forward by the appellant.

F. That the learned Judge, while rendering the impugned judgment,

also observed (in Paragraph 18 at Page No. 8) that no rule empowered

the Special Committee to call the officials of departments,

corporations and organizations for implementation of its

recommendations. By making such observations, the Honorable

Judge, it is submitted with respect, made the three Circulars issued

on the strength of the Motion adopted by the National Assembly

completely ineffective. The entire proceedings of the Special

Committee were conducted in pursuance of the said Motion adopted

by the National Assembly. The impugned judgment, it is submitted

with reverence, had indirectly attacked the Motion adopted by the

National Assembly which power was not available to the learned

Judge in view of the principle of separation of powers as enshrined

in the Constitution of Pakistan.

G. That the impugned judgment is also not sustainable being

inconsistent and self-conflicting. At page No. 8 of the judgment, the

learned Judge observed that “in all circumstances recommendations

had to be place before the House in National Assembly through

speaker……”. Without prejudice, it is submitted that if the learned

Judge had formed such opinion then instead of setting aside the

recommendations made by the Special Committee, the proper

course available to the learned Judge was to send the matter back to

the worthy Speaker for placing the same before the House. So, on

one hand, the learned Judge observed that the recommendations of

the Committee were required to be placed before the Speaker for

onward placement of the same before the House but surprisingly on

the other, the learned Judge set-aside those recommendations

himself.

H. That in paragraph No. 19 (Page No. 9 of the impugned Judgement),

the learned Judge in chambers, while discussing the scope of Article

69 of the Constitution of Pakistan observed that the “proceedings in

the Parliament that infringed the provisions of the Constitution are no

longer protected”. One wonders that on what basis the learned Judge

in chambers formed this opinion that the proceedings conducted by

the Special Committee (constituted on the strength of a Motion adopted

by the National Assembly) were in violation of some provision of the

Constitution of Pakistan. It is a matter of record that the learned

Judge did not refer to any constitutional provision that was infringed
 by the Special Committee. A vague, inconclusive and unfounded

observation made in the impugned judgment is thus not sustainable.

In support of the above observation, the learned judge relied upon a

case reported as PLD 2022 SC 574. True that the said judgment of

the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has interalia dealt with the

scope of Article 69 of the Constitution of Pakistan but the ratio of the

said judgment, it is respect fully added, is not applicable at all to the

facts and circumstances of the case. The reliance on the said

judgment, respectfully added, was misconceived.

I. That while rendering the impugned judgment, the learned Judge, in

Paragraph No. 19 (page 11 of the impugned judgment), observed that

“actions initiated and orders given by the respondent committee of the

National Assembly are contrary to the law”. The judgment, however,

does not give any indication about the law that was allegedly

violated by the Special Committee. The learned single Judge

discussed the contents of Circular dated 12-10-2022 and observed

that the Committee “cannot go beyond its Terms of Reference”. The

Honorable Judge, it is respectfully submitted, altogether overlooked

the subsequent Circulars dated 17-10-2022 and 04-11-2022 that

enlarged the scope of ToRs earlier framed for the Committee in the

Circular dated 12-10-2022.

J. That another observation made in the impugned judgment that

makes it legally not sustainable reflects at Page 11 of the impugned

judgment and it states that since the tenure of the Assembly stood
 completed, “the recommendations have no legal effect and all the

recommendations are void.” The strange logic which the learned

Judge has tried to invoke in support of the aforementioned

observations has no legal backing. The recommendations issued by

the Committees constituted during the tenure of a particular

Assembly cannot be termed as without any legal effect or void

merely on the basis of completion of tenure of the said Assembly.

Added thereto that the recommendations/directions of the Special

Committee were fait accompli and not pending business for the

purpose of rule 253 of the 2007 Rules. Such

recommendations/directions are still in field despite dissolution of

the Assembly.

K. That the learned Judge, while concluding the judgment (Page 11),

seems to have been impressed by the position taken by the learned

Assistant Attorney General (AAG) representing the Federal

Government. The learned AAG, during the course of proceedings

before the single Bench, did not support the recommendations given

by the Special Committee. The writ petitions were heard on 27-09-

2023 when the caretaker set up had taken control of the affairs of

the federal government. It is respectfully submitted that stance of

the caretaker government had hardly any relevance for adjudication

of the questions involved in the writ petition. Even otherwise, as per

the scheme of the Constitution of Pakistan what is done by the

 elected parliament cannot be allowed to be undone by a caretaker

setup.

L. That the learned Judge has issued an omnibus direction to all the

ministries, departments and organizations ordering them not to

implement the directions issued by the Special Committee. No

concept of such omnibus order exists. The last two paragraphs of the

impugned judgment show that the Honorable Judge, while deciding

the constitution petitions had in fact exercised sou moto jurisdiction

and the impugned judgment not only covered the litigating parties

before the Court but several other departments and organizations

which were not even party to the proceedings. It is now a settled law

that the High Courts in the country can not exercise sou moto

jurisdiction.

M. That the impugned judgment is voilative of the well-defined concept

of sovereignty of the Parliament and the same is nonetheless, with

exactitude, a serious encroachment upon, blatant interference with

and intrusion into the constitutionally envisaged independence of

an organ of the state i.e. the Parliament.

N. That the appellant seeks permission to take further grounds at the

bar during the course of hearing of the case.

 PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honorable

Court may very graciously be pleased to set aside the judgment
dated 13-10-2023 and as a consequence thereof the writ
petition No. 4657/2022 may kindly be ordered to be
dismissed.

Appellant

Through

Hafiz Arfat Ahmad Ch Kashifa Niaz Awan

Advocate Supreme Court Advocate Supreme Court

Tariq Zaman Ch.

Advocate High Court

CERTIFICATE

As per instructions received from the client, it is certified that no such

appeal has been filed earlier on the subject matter before this or any other
Honourable Court.

It is certified that the appeal has arisen from the violation, non-fulfilment
of obligations under the articles of the constitution of Islamic republic of
Pakistan.
Further certified that no appeal of the appellant on the subject is pending
or has been decided by the Honourable Supreme Court.

COUNSEL
 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT ISLAMABAD

I.C.A No. _________/2023

in
Writ Petition No. 4657/2022

National Assembly Secretariat Versus Mumtaz Khan etc

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE LAW REFORMS ORDINANCE, 1972

AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT ANNOUNCED ON 13-10-2023 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT,
ISLAMABAD

Affidavit of: Mr. Muhammad Farooq, Deputy Secretary

(Litigation) National Assembly Secretariat, Parliament House,
Islamabad
The above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the
contents of the accompanying intra court appeal are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed
therefrom.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified on oath at Islamabad on this-----day of November, 2023 that the

contents of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and
belief nothing has been concealed or suppressed.

DEPONENT
 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT ISLAMABAD

CM No.________/2023
IN

I.C.A No. _________/2023

National Assembly Secretariat Versus Pakistan Mumtaz Khan etc.

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE LAW REFORMS ORDINANCE, 1972 AGAINST

THE JUDGEMENT PASSED ON 13-10-2023 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF
ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC FOR EXEMPTION

Respectfully Sheweth:

1. That certified copies of Annexures are not available. However,

uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the
Appeal, which are true copies of original documents.

2. That it is in the interest of justice that the applicant/appellant be

dispensed with from producing certified copies of documents and the
captioned appeal be entertained

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased
to dispense with the requirement of filing of certified copies of documents.

Applicant/Appellant

Through

Hafiz Arfat Ahmad Ch

Advocate Supreme Court
 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT ISLAMABAD

CM No.________/2023
IN

I.C.A No. _________/2023

National Assembly Secretariat Versus Mumtaz Khan etc.

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE LAW REFORMS ORDINANCE, 1972 AGAINST

THE JUDGEMENT PASSED ON 13-10-2023 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF
ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC FOR EXEMPTION

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of: Mr. Muhammad Farooq, Deputy Secretary

(Litigation) National Assembly Secretariat, Parliament House,
Islamabad

The above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the
contents of the accompanying application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified on oath at Islamabad on this-----day of November, 2023 that the contents

of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief nothing has
been concealed or suppressed.

DEPONENT
 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT ISLAMABAD

CM No.________/2023
IN

I.C.A No. _________/2023

National Assembly Secretariat Versus Mumtaz Khan etc.

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE LAW REFORMS ORDINANCE, 1972

AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT PASSED ON 30-11-2022 BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE OF ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1& 2 READ WITH SECTION

151 CPC FOR GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF
Respectfully Sheweth:

1. That the applicant/appellant has today filed the titled appeal in

which no date of hearing has been fixed so far.

2. That, inter alia, for the grounds taken and submissions made in the
titled appeal which may graciously be read and considered as
integral part of this application, the applicant/appellant has a strong
prima facie case entitling it to the relief prayed for.

3. That the balance of convenience and inconvenience leans in favour

of the applicant/appellant and badly against the respondents.

4. That it is therefore, expedient and in the interest of law, justice and

equity that the operation of the impugned judgment dated 13-10-

2023 be suspended till the final adjudication of the titled Intra Court
Appeal
In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that pending
decision of the titled appeal, the operation of the impugned
judgment dated 13-10-2023 may kindly be ordered to be
suspended.

Applicant/appellant

Through

Hafiz Arfat Ahmed Ch.

Advocate Supreme Court
 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT ISLAMABAD

CM No.________/2023
IN

I.C.A No. _________/2023

National Assembly Secretariat Versus Mumtaz Khan etc.

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE LAW REFORMS ORDINANCE, 1972 AGAINST

THE JUDGEMENT PASSED ON 13-10-2023 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF
ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1& 2 READ WITH SECTION

151 CPC FOR GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF

Affidavit of: Mr. Muhammad Farooq, Deputy Secretary

(Litigation) National Assembly Secretariat, Parliament House,
Islamabad

The above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the
contents of the accompanying application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified on oath at Islamabad on this-----day of November, 2023 that the contents

of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief nothing has
been concealed or suppressed.

DEPONENT
 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT ISLAMABAD

I.C.A No. _________/2023

National Assembly Secretariat Versus Mumtaz Khan etc.

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE LAW REFORMS ORDINANCE, 1972 AGAINST

THE JUDGEMENT PASSED ON 13-10-2023 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF
ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

INDEX

Sr. Particulars of Documents Annexure Page No.

No

1 Grounds of ICA

2 Copy of Impugned Judgement A

3 Copy of Circular dated 12-10-2022 B

4 Copy of Circular dated 17-10-2022 C

5 Copy of Circular dated 04-11-2022 D

6 Exemption Application along with

Affidavit

7 Application for interim relief along

with Affidavit

8 Vakalatnama

Appellant

Through

Hafiz Arfat Ahmad Ch. Kashifa Niaz Awan

Advocate Supreme Court Advocate Supreme Court