AGL 38.48 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.21%)
AIRLINK 203.02 Decreased By ▼ -4.75 (-2.29%)
BOP 10.17 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.09%)
CNERGY 6.54 Decreased By ▼ -0.54 (-7.63%)
DCL 9.58 Decreased By ▼ -0.41 (-4.1%)
DFML 40.02 Decreased By ▼ -1.12 (-2.72%)
DGKC 98.08 Decreased By ▼ -5.38 (-5.2%)
FCCL 34.96 Decreased By ▼ -1.39 (-3.82%)
FFBL 86.43 Decreased By ▼ -5.16 (-5.63%)
FFL 13.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.70 (-4.79%)
HUBC 131.57 Decreased By ▼ -7.86 (-5.64%)
HUMNL 14.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.57%)
KEL 5.61 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-6.03%)
KOSM 7.27 Decreased By ▼ -0.59 (-7.51%)
MLCF 45.59 Decreased By ▼ -1.69 (-3.57%)
NBP 66.38 Decreased By ▼ -7.38 (-10.01%)
OGDC 220.76 Decreased By ▼ -1.90 (-0.85%)
PAEL 38.48 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (0.97%)
PIBTL 8.91 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-3.88%)
PPL 197.88 Decreased By ▼ -7.97 (-3.87%)
PRL 39.03 Decreased By ▼ -0.82 (-2.06%)
PTC 25.47 Decreased By ▼ -1.15 (-4.32%)
SEARL 103.05 Decreased By ▼ -7.19 (-6.52%)
TELE 9.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-2.28%)
TOMCL 36.41 Decreased By ▼ -1.80 (-4.71%)
TPLP 13.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.15%)
TREET 25.12 Decreased By ▼ -1.33 (-5.03%)
TRG 58.04 Decreased By ▼ -2.50 (-4.13%)
UNITY 33.67 Decreased By ▼ -0.47 (-1.38%)
WTL 1.71 Decreased By ▼ -0.17 (-9.04%)
BR100 11,890 Decreased By -408.8 (-3.32%)
BR30 37,357 Decreased By -1520.9 (-3.91%)
KSE100 111,070 Decreased By -3790.4 (-3.3%)
KSE30 34,909 Decreased By -1287 (-3.56%)

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court set aside the Peshawar High Court (PHC)’s order to ban the export of poultry products, and held that the HC has no suo motu powers.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, and Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi on Tuesday heard the appeals of M/s Sadiq Poultry (Pvt) Ltd against the PHC’s order dated 01-07-2021. The bench dismissing the PHC’s order said that the detailed reasons will be issued later.

The PHC on 01.07.2021 had directed the respondents to ensure that neither poultry items nor livestock nor meat of the slaughtered animals is exported to the neighbouring country (Afghanistan) till the prices of such commodities come down to a reasonable level.

Kamran Murtaza, representing the petitioner, explained that due to the export of chickens the country earns millions of dollars on an annual basis. He submitted that the orders of the PHC are not only destroying the export market of the petitioner and others in the poultry export business but will also destroy the domestic poultry business if the High Court continues to erroneously manage the prices.

He argued; “The high court has no authority to take the notice itself.” “Making the import, export policy and fixing prices is the authority of the government, not the court,” he added. He submitted that the exercise of suo motu powers by the High Court is against the principles of law reported as 2014 SCMR 122 and 2018 PLC Note 3936.

Murtaza further said that the High Court vide its order dated 16.09.2021 did recall its previous order of complete ban of export to Afghanistan, however, passed new directions including the formation of a committee to review prices of livestock and poultry and to calculate the prices under a formula where prices of livestock by products such as hide, viscera, feathers, legs/wings etc are deducted.

“The federal government has also supported the stance of the petitioner,” he told the apex court.

The counsel argued that the High Court has transgressed its jurisdiction by determining factors not prayed for and setting prices and banning exports without any backing of the law. The factors being regulated by the bench of the High Court do not fall within the domain of the province and could not be determined without notice to the Office of the Attorney General of Pakistan.

He said the High Court has erred by interfering in policy matters of the executive by ordering the formation of a divisional-level committee to review prices of livestock and poultry and by giving a formula for price calculation.

The High Court cannot give a formula for the calculation of prices of livestock and poultry when it is a policy matter having no nexus with any law. The impugned order is in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and others as guaranteed under Articles 4, 18, and 29 of the Constitution.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2022

Comments

Comments are closed.