 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR 
 
 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO.784 AND 853 TO 876 OF 2014 AND 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITIONS NO.48 & 54 OF 2014 
(Against the judgment dated 17.5.2014 of the Islamabad High Court, 
Islamabad passed in Writ Petitions No. 1789, 1949, 1866, 1861, 1860, 
1973, 1865, 2045, 2277, 1974, 2167, 2264, 2061, 2166, 1972, 1971, 
1859, 2057, 2055, 2056, 2060, 1864, 2059, 2082 & 2058 of 2014) 
 
 
M/o IPC through its Secretary etc. 
       …in C.P.784, 854 to 876/2014 
Chairman Management Committee PCB etc. 
      … in C.P.853/2014 
Arbab Altaf Hussain 
 
 
 
 
      … in Cr.O.P. 48/14 
Adnan Ahmed Siddiqui  
 
 
 
      … in Cr.O.P. 54/14 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
Arbab Altaf Hussain etc.  
 
 
 
      … in C.P.784/2014 
Sanobar Gul etc.  
 
 
 
 
      … in C.P.853/2014 
Muhammad Irfan etc. 
 
 
 
 
      … in C.P.854/2014 
Farrukh Munir Chaudhry etc.  
 
 
      … in C.P.855/2014 
Aneela Arshad etc. 
 
 
 
 
      … in C.P.856/2014 
Adnan Ahmed Siddiqui etc. 
 
 
 
      … in C.P.857/2014 
Ihtesham-ul-Haq etc. 
 
 
 
 
      … in C.P.858/2014 
Syed Tanveer Jafri etc.  
 
 
 
      … in C.P.859/2014 
Commodore (R) M. Arshad Hussain etc. 
 
      … in C.P.860/2014 
Amjad Ali etc. 
 
 
 
 
 
      … in C.P.861/2014 
Muhammad Ilyas etc. 
 
 
 
 
      … in C.P.862/2014 
Ejaz Hussain etc.  
 
 
 
 
      … in C.P.863/2014 
Muhammad Liaquat etc. 
 
 
 
      … in C.P.864/2014 
Syed Azhar Ali Shah etc. 
 
 
 
      … in C.P.865/2014 
Alveena Tariq etc.  
 
 
 
 
      … in C.P.866/2014 
Muhammad Akhtar etc.  
 
 
 
      … in C.P.867/2014 
Syed M. Akram Shabbir Gillani etc.  
 
      … in C.P.868/2014 
Idrees Ali etc. 
 
 
 
 
 
      … in C.P.869/2014 
Muhammad Faisal etc.  
 
 
 
      … in C.P.870/2014 
Nabeel Edger Pace etc.  
 
 
 
      … in C.P.871/2014 
Muhammad Asim etc. 
 
 
 
 
      … in C.P.872/2014 
Shahnaz Asif etc.  
 
 
 
 
      … in C.P.873/2014 
Waseem-ud-Din etc. 
 
 
 
 
      … in C.P.874/2014 
Salman Ahmed Shah etc. 
 
 
 
      … in C.P.875/2014 
Sajid Yasin Hashmi etc.  
 
 
 
      … in C.P.876/2014 
Najam Aziz Sethi etc. 
 
 
 
 
      … in Cr.O.P. 48/14 
Secretary M/o IPC Islamabad etc. 
 
 
      … in Cr.O.P. 54/14 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the petitioner(s): 
(in C.Ps.784, 854 to 876/2014) 
Mrs. Asma Jehangir, Sr. ASC 
 
 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 2 :- 
For the petitioner(s): 
(in C.P.853/2014) 
Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Sr. ASC 
Mr. Taffazul H. Rizvi, ASC 
Mr. C.M. Lateef, AOR 
 
 
For the petitioner(s): 
(in Cr.O.Ps.48 & 54/2014) 
Sahibzada Ahmed Raza Kasuri, Sr. ASC 
 
 
For respondent No.1: 
(in C.Ps.784, 854 to 857, 866, 868 & 
873/2014) 
Sahibzada Ahmed Raza Kasuri, Sr. ASC 
Ms. Tasneem Amin, AOR 
 
 
For respondents (2, 4, 5, 8 to 13): 
(in C.P.784/2014) 
Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Sr. ASC 
Mr. Taffazul H. Rizvi, ASC 
Mr. C.M. Lateef, AOR 
 
 
For the respondent(s): 
(in C.Ps.859 & 860/2014) 
Mr. Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, ASC 
Syed Hasnain Ibrahim Kazmi, ASC 
 
 
For respondent No.2: 
(in C.P.875/2014) 
Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan, ASC 
 
 
For respondent No.1: 
(in C.Ps.853 & 862/2014) 
Ghulam Asghar Khokhar, ASC 
 
 
For the Federation: 
Mr. Salman Aslam Butt, 
Attorney General for Pakistan 
Mr. Waqas Rana, ASC/Consultant to A.G. 
Mr. Taimur Khan, Consultant to A.G. 
Mr. Najam Aziz Sethi, in person 
 
 
Respondents/Employees of 
Cricket Board: 
Faisal Rai, in person 
Nabeel Edger Pace, in person 
Ehtisham, in person 
Irfan, in person 
Adnan Siddiqui, in person 
Akram Gillani, in person 
Ilyas Ahmed, in person 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
21.07.2014 
… 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.- The matter came up for hearing 
before this Court on 21.7.2014 and vide short orders, these petitions 
were converted into appeals and allowed in the following terms:- 
“After hearing the arguments of learned ASCs for the parties 
and some of the respondents in person, for reasons to be 
recorded separately, this petition is converted into appeal and 
allowed; impugned judgment dated 17.5.2014  is set aside. In 
the light of the new Constitution of the Board, enforced vide 
notification dated 10.7.2014, the Patron is required to appoint 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 3 :- 
Acting Chairman for the intervening period and also the Chief 
Election Commissioner within one week to hold free and fair 
elections within the period prescribed by the notification(s) 
dated 10.7.2014. It may be mentioned here that Mr. Najam Aziz 
Sethi has made a statement before the Court that he shall not be 
contesting forthcoming elections for the post of Chairman, 
PCB. Other pending applications, including Criminal Original 
Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 are also disposed of accordingly. 
For reasons to be recorded separately, these petitions are 
converted into appeals and allowed; the judgment impugned 
therein is, therefore, set aside as the petitions filed by the 
respondents before the Islamabad High Court were, inter alia, 
incompetent; the Board having no statutory rules. Besides, their 
appointments were on contract basis. Other pending applications 
are also disposed of accordingly.” 
(This order be read as integral part of this opinion) 
2. 
 
The backdrop of this case has nexus with the appointment 
of Mr. Zaka Ashraf as the Chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB 
or the Board), vide notification dated 13.10.2011. This appointment 
(election) was assailed by one Major (R) Nadeem Ahmed through Writ 
Petition No.2242/2013 in the Islamabad High Court on 25.5.2013 and 
by an order dated 28.5.2013, the learned single Judge-in-Chamber 
restrained Mr. Zaka Ashraf from performing his duties as the 
Chairman. Vide another order dated 13.6.2013, the Islamabad High 
Court directed the Ministry of Inter Provincial Coordination (IPC) to 
appoint someone as the acting Chairman of the Board. Pursuant to 
the above, IPC placed three names before the Islamabad High Court 
for approval of one of them to act as the Chairman, but before an 
order could be passed by the Court; the Patron nominated Mr. Najam 
Sethi as the acting Chairman vide notification dated 22.6.2013. 
However, ultimately vide judgment dated 4.7.2013 the noted writ 
petition was allowed and the appointment of Mr. Zaka Ashraf as the 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 4 :- 
Chairman of the PCB was set aside/annulled. The salient features of 
this judgment are reflected in paragraphs No.21 to 25 thereof, in 
that, a direction was issued for the special audit of the PCB during 
the period when Mr. Zaka Ashraf was the Chairman of the Board; 
Part IV of the PCB Constitution was declared to be void ab initio and 
a direction was issued to the Election Commission of Pakistan for 
holding of the election(s) of the PCB (for the Board as a whole) within 90 
days. Furthermore, Mr. Najam Sethi was directed to act as the 
caretaker Chairman, till the time a new Chairman was elected in 
terms of the said judgment. This judgment dated 4.7.2013 was 
assailed by Mr. Zaka Ashraf and the present petitioner vide intra court 
appeals (ICA No.1033/2013 and ICA No.938/2013 respectively) which were allowed 
by the Division Bench of the High Court on 15.1.2014, and the 
judgment of the single Judge-in-Chamber was set aside. The effect of 
this judgment is clear from the operative part thereof which is 
reproduced as under:- 
“In view of the aforementioned facts, we have come to the 
conclusion that the impugned judgment, was outside the 
ambit of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic 
of Pakistan, 1973 and is therefore, liable to be set aside. The 
respondent Chaudhry Muhammad Zaka Ashraf was removed 
from the post of Chairman, Pakistan Cricket Board in 
violation of principle of natural justice, as no opportunity of 
hearing was provided to him at the time of removal, so by 
setting aside the impugned judgment, we order restoration of 
Chaudhry Muhammad Zaka Ashraf as Chairman, Pakistan 
Cricket Board. All the decisions taken by PCB or I.M.C. 
during interim period, would be considered as legal and 
would stand validated. Since the appointment of Interim 
Management Committee was temporary, so with the 
pronouncement of this judgment, the said Committee would 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 5 :- 
stand dissolved. The situation of Pakistan Cricket Board 
would come back to the day when the writ petition was 
filed.” 
This judgment was challenged by the present petitioner (IPC) vide Civil 
Petition No.61/2014 which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court 
on 31.1.2014. The following part of the order is relevant:-  
“8. 
The record reveals that the learned Single Judge in 
chambers at Islamabad High Court passed the order 
restraining respondent No.1 to function as Chairman, 
Cricket Board at the initial stage of the proceedings. This 
order created a vacuum which necessitated measures for a 
stop gap arrangement. At the end of the day, when the Intra 
Court Appeal was allowed and respondent No.1 was 
restored, the vacuum thus created has filled. Once the 
vacuum was filled, we do not understand how the interim or 
stop gap arrangement or set up created during the 
interregnum can endure. The interim set up created pursuant 
to inter-locutory or final orders passed by the learned Single 
Judge of the High Court in its Chambers in Writ Petition 
No.2242 of 2013 will evaporate with their reversal on 
acceptance of appeal. Therefore, we do not agree with the 
learned ASC for the petitioner that the set up created during 
the interregnum can have any existence after the parties 
were brought to the position as was existing at the time of 
commencement of action. 
9. 
The argument addressed in the alternative that even 
if the set up thus created during the interregnum cannot 
endure, the power of the Government to hire and fire cannot 
be restricted by any observation made in the impugned 
judgment, seems to have flowed from on apprehension which 
is more Imaginary than real. There is absolutely nothing in 
the impugned judgment, nor there can be, as could restrict 
the power of the Government to do what it is required by law 
to do. When faced with this situation, the learned ASC for the 
petitioner straightaway asked for withdrawal of her petition 
in the terms mentioned above (emphasis supplied by us).” 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 6 :- 
3. 
 
Vide notification dated 30.1.2014 issued by the Federal 
Government an amendment was introduced in the Constitution of the 
PCB and instead of the President of Pakistan, the Prime Minister of 
Pakistan was made the Patron (of the PCB). Furthermore vide notification 
dated 10.2.2014 another amendment was made therein (in the Constitution) 
to the effect that Section 41 was substituted, to read as follows:- 
 
“41. Supersession of the Board.- (1) When the Patron 
is of the opinion that the Board is unable to perform its 
functions properly in accordance with this Constitution he 
may, by order in writing, supersede the Board and constitute a 
Management Committee comprising upto eleven members, for 
the performance of the functions of the Board: 
 
Provided that upon an order of supersession the Board 
of Governors shall stand dissolved and the Chairman shall 
stand removed.  
 
Provided further that such supersession shall not 
remain in force for a period of more than one hundred and 
twenty days unless extended by the Patron for reasons to be 
recorded in writing.  
 
(2) 
The Management Committee shall elect one of 
its members to be its Chairman who shall also be the 
Chairman of the Board.  
 
(3) 
The Management Committee shall assume and 
discharge all or any functions of the Board and references in 
this Constitution to the Board of Governors and the Chairman 
shall deemed to be a reference to the Management Committee. 
 
(4) 
The Patron may also assign additional functions 
to the Management Committee for the promotion and 
development of Cricket. 
 
(5) 
All acts done, proceedings taken and 
contract entered into by the Management Committee shall 
be deemed to have been done, taken and entered into 
lawfully and validly and shall be binding on the Board.” 
The same day (i.e. 10.2.2014) vide another notification No.4-14/2008-IPC-
S-II, the Board, which was restored by the learned Division Bench of the 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 7 :- 
High Court through its verdict dated 15.1.2014, was superseded by the 
Patron in exercise of his power under Section 41 thereof (the amended 
Constitution) and an Interim Management Committee (IMC) was formed to 
run the affairs of the PCB in place of the superseded Board. This 
supersession as mandated by law was for a period of one hundred and 
twenty days. The contents of the notification are:- 
“No.4-14/2008-IPC-S-II. Whereas there is an emergent 
need to streamline the affairs of Pakistan Cricket Board 
(PCB) and to align its constitution towards representative 
governance, to contain principles of financial discipline, to 
provide guiding principles for promotion of the game of 
cricket as per the international best practices, and to 
eliminate the chances of corrupt and arbitrary practices, and 
to organize cricketing bodies in a fair and transparent 
manner; 
And whereas there are serious issues in the management of 
PCB, repugnant to the aims and objects of PCB and that 
there is an immediate and emergent need to take necessary 
measures to improve the management of PCB as well as to 
streamline the game of cricket at all levels in Pakistan; 
Now, therefore, under the powers conferred upon the Patron 
under paragraph 41 of the PCB constitution as amended 
vide SRO dated 10th February 2014, the Prime Minister of 
Pakistan being Patron PCB has been pleased to constitute 
the following Management Committee for performance of the 
functions of the Board with immediate effect: 
i. 
Mian Sheharyar Khan, Ex-Chairman PCB. 
ii. 
Mr. Najam Aziz Sethi, Ex-Acting Chairman PCB 
iii. 
Mr. Zaheer Abbas, Ex-Captain Pakistan Cricket 
Team. 
iv. 
Mr. Naveed Akram Cheema, Chief Secretary 
Punjab. 
v. 
Secretary, Ministry of IPC. 
vi. 
Mr. 
Shakil 
Sheikh, 
Ex-Member 
BOG, 
Islamabad/Rawalpindi. 
vii. 
Mr. Yousaf Naseem Khokhar, Ex-Member, BOG 
from Wapda. 
viii. 
Mr. Iqbal Qasim, ex-test Cricketer/Ex-member of 
BOG from National Bank of Pakistan. 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 8 :- 
2. 
It shall elect one of its members as Chairman, who 
shall be the Chairman PCB.” 
Pursuant to the above notification and in terms of sub-para 2 thereof 
Mr. Najam Sethi was elected as the Chairman PCB. It may be 
mentioned here that these two notifications; the one amending the 
Constitution (of PCB) and the second superseding the Board of which Mr. 
Zaka Ashraf was the Chairman were never ever challenged by him (Mr. 
Zaka Ashraf) or any other Board Member(s) (who were thirteen in number); except 
Commodore (R) M. Arshad Hussain, and this remains to be the position 
till 10.7.2014, when the Federal Government has enforced a new 
Constitution of the Board. Be that as it may, during this period the 
services of certain employees of the Board were terminated, including 
one Arbab Altaf Hussain (respondent No.1 of C.P.L.A.No.784/2014) whose service 
was terminated on 28.3.2014 by the Director Human Resource and 
Administration (Director HR & A) of PCB. He was the first to file a Writ 
Petition No.1789/2014, primarily challenging his termination order, 
and it is only in the above context that the supersession notification 
was also assailed. Some other employees of PCB who were similarly 
placed (their services also terminated) filed the akin petitions (in some cases however 
the notification was not challenged). 
4. 
 
For the first time Commodore (R) M. Arshad Hussain (a 
member of the superseded Board) filed a Writ Petition No.2277/2014 before the 
Islamabad High Court on 10.5.2010 in which Mr. Zaka Ashraf was 
arrayed as one of the respondents. It may be relevant to mention here 
that the term of office of Mr. M. Arshad as a Board member admittedly 
was for a period of one year. His appointment is dated 13.5.2013, which 
term was to expire on 12.5.2014 and the petition was filed by him just 
two days (on 10.5.2014) before the expiry of his term. In this petition, Mr. 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 9 :- 
Zaka Ashraf at some point of time (note: must be between 12th to 14th of May --- without 
yet being served in the matter) moved an application for his transposition as a 
petitioner, but there is no order of the Court in respect of his 
transposition request. Anyhow, all these petitions which were twenty-
five in number were clubbed and heard together and have been decided 
by the single Judge-in-Chamber of the Islamabad High Court vide 
impugned judgment dated 17.5.2014; whereby the notification dated 
10.2.2014 (by virtue whereof the Board of Governors was superseded) has been 
declared illegal and unlawful. The main reasons in this regard are:- that 
the supersession is not inconsonance with the power available to the 
Patron in terms of Section 41 of the PCB Constitution; the object of 
supersession and the reasons for the interim set up were missing; that 
the Interim Managing Committee (IMC) has exercised certain power 
beyond its mandate; there was no material justifying the supersession 
and thus such action is arbitrary and mala fide. Thus on the basis of 
these broad reasons, the court came to the conclusion “Therefore, the 
impugned Notification dated 10.02.2014 superseding duly elected Body of Pakistan 
Cricket Board without assigning any reason nor any instance shown is required to 
be struck down. The same is, therefore, hereby annulled. The acts down orders 
based on long term nature by employing remaining or any other order of like nature 
passed by the interim Management Committee during such period are also struck 
down being excessive of their powers”. As a consequence of the impugned 
judgment, besides the revival of superseded Board, the termination of 
the employees has been annulled. The above judgment has been 
challenged before this Court in Civil Petition No.784/2014 (and other 
connected matters) and on 21.5.2014 this Court was pleased to suspend the 
impugned judgment in the following terms:- 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 10 :- 
“We have heard the learned ASC for the petitioner. Issue 
notice to the respondents for 27.5.2014. Till then, operation 
of the impugned judgment shall remain suspended.” 
 
On 27.5.2014 however another order was passed, in that, “At the joint 
request of learned ASCs for the parties, the hearing of main petition and the stay 
application is adjourned for two weeks. It is expected that in the meantime, parties will 
maintain status-quo vis-à-vis the contesting respondents”. 
5. 
 
The matter came up for hearing before this Court on 
26.6.2014 and the case was partly heard. When it came up for hearing 
on 10.7.2014, Mr. Salman Aslam Butt, the learned Attorney General for 
Pakistan appearing for the Federal Government informed the Court that 
a new Constitution of the Board is being enforced; the Managing 
Committee headed by Mr. Najam Sethi is being dispensed with, and a 
new Board of Governors is being constituted. During the course of 
hearing it was further divulged that pursuant to the new Constitution 
and the steps to follow, Mr. Najam Sethi shall be one of the nominees of 
the Patron on the Board of Governors. About this new development, Mr. 
Imtiaz Rasheed Siddiqui, learned ASC appearing for Mr. Zaka Ashraf 
when queried, has categorically, unequivocally and unambiguously 
stated, that he has discussed the above expected development with Mr. 
Zaka Ashraf, who is abroad. He and his client has no objection qua the 
enforcement of the new Constitution; the holding of the elections 
thereunder. His client however for the vindication of his position shall 
request the Court for his reinstatement as per the impugned judgment, 
and simultaneously shall resign, without taking over as the Chairman 
PCB even for a single moment. But Mr. Siddiqui expressed serious 
reservation about the inclusion of Mr. Najam Sethi as one of the 
nominees of the Patron on the proposed PCB Board, on the ground that 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 11 :- 
this is an ulteriorly motivated move and the object and intention behind 
is to bring back Mr. Sethi as the Chairman, in an oblique and indirect 
way. This according to him shall be a colourable exercise of jurisdiction 
and a mala fide act. It is meant to ultimately bring him back as the 
Chairman, through a dubious mean. Anyhow the case was adjourned to 
11.7.2014 to have the view point of Mr. Sethi in the context of above 
objection and the plea. On the said date (11.7.2014) three notifications 
were also produced on the record by the learned Attorney General vide 
C.M.A.No.3933/2014. The first notification is about the promulgation of 
the new Constitution of the PCB. By virtue of second notification SRO 
No.1/2014 (in supersession of office letter No. F.No.4-14/2008-IPC(S-II) dated 6th June, 
2014 and SRO dated 10.2.2014), the Patron appointed Mr. Justice (R) Syed 
Jamshed Ali Shah, the former Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan 
as the Election Commissioner of PCB with immediate effect as per the 
requirement of Part-IV of the new Constitution of PCB; the Managing 
Committee headed by Mr. Najam Sethi ceased to exist and the newly 
appointed Election Commissioner (named above) was to take over the 
charge of Chairman PCB who was to ensure the conduct of elections 
within thirty days from the date of assumption of the office as the 
Chairman PCB. This all was required to be done in terms of the new 
Constitution. Vide same notification as per Article 10 of the new PCB 
Constitution, the composition of the Board of Governors was postulated 
and Mr. Najam Sethi and Mr. Iqbal Umer, the two Members of the 
Board of Governors were nominated by the Patron in his discretion (as 
envisaged by Article 10(d) of the new Constitution). According to third notification 
No. F.No.4-14/2008-IPC(S-II), it was mandated that Mr. Justice (R) 
Syed Jamshed Ali Shah shall take over as the Chairman of PCB with 
immediate effect from today. 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 12 :- 
6. 
 
On 11.7.2014 Mr. Najam Sethi was also present in the 
Court who came forward to express his view point and stated that he in 
the first place was never keen to be appointed as Chairman PCB, but 
the Patron reposed confidence in him and he has worked hard for the 
revamping of the Board and promotion of Cricket in Pakistan. It is on 
account of his honest endeavors that the Board’s function, prestige etc. 
has been improved and restored. Once again, if the Patron (the Prime 
Minister) wants him to continue serving the Board in any capacity, he 
cannot disappoint the Patron and say no to him. Be that as it may, on 
the said date the operation of two out of three notifications dated 
10.7.2014 (except through which the Constitution was enforced --- brought on the record 
vide C.M.A.No.3933/2014) was suspended and the matter was listed for 
hearing on 21.7.2014. 
7. 
 
Ms. Asma Jehangir, learned counsel for the petitioner in 
continuation of the earlier submissions made on 26.6.2014 argued that 
the supersession notification dated 10.7.2014 is well within the purview 
of the provisions of Section 41 of the PCB Constitution and the 
authority available to the Patron thereunder; the opinion has been 
formed by the Patron on the basis of adequate material justifying that 
the Board is unable to perform its functions properly in accordance 
with the PCB Constitution, thus it is in valid exercise of his jurisdiction 
and the Board headed by Mr. Zaka Ashraf was lawfully superseded. 
Moreover she contended that none of the writ petitioners/respondents 
had any locus standi to challenge the notification of supersession dated 
10.2.2014; Mr. Zaka Ashraf or any other Board member who were 
superseded never ever challenged the supersession order, except 
Commodore (R) M. Arshad Hussain, who in the facts and circumstances 
of the case had no locus standi to do so, because his term as a Member 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 13 :- 
of the Board was to expire on 12.5.2014, whereas the writ petition 
bearing No.2277/2014 was filed by him on 10.5.2014, which was a 
Saturday and when it came up for final hearing on 15.5.2014, he 
virtually was not a Member of the Board; that Commodore (R) M. 
Arshad Hussain was estopped by his own conduct to file such belated 
petition which was hit by the rule of laches, and the principles of 
acquiescence, waiver are also duly attracted to his case. Furthermore, 
she submitted that from the contents of his petition, it is quite clear 
that Commodore (R) M. Arshad Hussain was/is neither pursuing his 
own cause in a bona fide manner, nor does he come to the Court with 
clean hands, rather this is a proxy petition, as he is primarily seeking 
the reinstatement of Mr. Zaka Ashraf. As regards the other writ 
petitioners/respondents, it is submitted that they were all contractual 
employees of the Board and their services were terminated by the 
competent authority in the Board (e.g. in the case of Arbab Altaf Hussain by 
Director HR & A) after giving one month’s notice as per the terms and 
conditions of their service. The issue of supersession of the Board in the 
context of the termination of the employees was not relevant and, 
therefore, while examining the validity of their termination, the learned 
High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the 
Constitution of Pakistan 1973, in the garb of such petitions could not 
determine the vires of the supersession action. Without prejudice to the 
above, it is also submitted that the very writ petitions filed by the 
employees were incompetent and not maintainable in law, because not 
only that they were in the contractual employment of the Board, rather 
their rules of service were non-statutory in nature and resultantly, the 
writ petitions should have been dismissed on this score alone; in any 
case the employees in the facts and circumstances of the present case 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 14 :- 
had no locus standi to challenge the supersession order of the Board 
dated 10.2.2014; it was/is also not permissible for the employees to 
make a collateral attack on the supersession action of the Board, in the 
garb of challenging their termination of contractual employment. 
8. 
 
During the course of her submissions Ms. Asma Jehangir, 
learned counsel in view of certain observation of the Court sought some 
time to ponder qua the response thereto; one hour was granted for the 
above. On resumption of hearing, Mr. Najam Sethi who was present in 
the Court throughout the proceedings (since morning) came to the rostrum 
and stated that the only objection of the respondent Mr. Zaka Ashraf is 
that by virtue of his nomination as a member of the new Board he shall 
be elected as the Chairman of the Board. But while hearing the 
proceeding of the case, he has decided not to contest the forthcoming 
elections for the office of Chairmanship under the new Constitution (such 
statement is also reflected in the short order reproduced above). Mr. Imtiaz Rasheed 
Siddiqui, learned ASC when asked to comment upon the above, states 
that though his client (he himself) has no intention to resile from earlier 
commitment made before the Court in respect of accepting the new 
Constitution and the steps to be taken thereunder, but as the 
petitioners have argued the case in the first part of the day on merits 
therefore, he would also make his legal submissions. Be that as it may, 
in order to avoid any confusion, we have again asked Mr. Siddiqui if he 
accepts the new Constitution and the holding of elections according to 
it, he very candidly and unequivocally affirms the same. Be that as it 
may, we have still allowed him to make his submissions. It is argued 
that this entire exercise of supersession is mala fide; meant to 
circumvent, nullify and frustrate the judgment of the High Court passed 
in ICA dated 15.1.2014; there was no material available with the Patron 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 15 :- 
to form an honest opinion, that the Board is unable to perform its 
functions properly in accordance with the Constitution. He has also 
made reference to the summary submitted by the concerned ministry to 
the Patron for the purposes of supersession, to argue that from the 
contents thereof it is clear that the entire exercise of supersession is 
manipulation and a preplanned action; the Patron has not formed any 
independent opinion as is required by Section 41 ibid; that there was no 
waiver on part of Mr. Zaka Ashraf at any point of time for the reason 
that Commodore (R) M. Arshad Hussain, one of the Board Members, 
had filed the writ petition in which Mr. Zaka Ashraf was arrayed as a 
respondent, an application was moved for transposition as the 
petitioner, and thus for all intents and purposes he shall be deemed as 
a petitioner in the cause of challenging the supersession order dated 
10.2.2014. Besides, it is argued that one Mr. Rafiq Bogio another 
Member of the Board had also challenged the supersession action and, 
therefore, regardless that no direct challenge was thrown by Mr. Zaka 
Ashraf; these challenges by the aggrieved persons who were deprived of 
their vested right to be the Members of the Board was good enough to 
assail the supersession. He submitted that the impugned judgment is in 
rem and all the affected persons shall be entitled to take the benefit of 
the said verdict. It is also argued that on account of the new 
Constitution Mr. Zaka Ashraf and the other Board Members cannot be 
deprived of their vested right, which right stands created in their favour 
on account of the two judgments of the High Court, one passed in ICA 
dated 15.1.2014 and the other impugned in the present petition. He has 
also submitted that in the facts and circumstances, no question of 
waiver, estoppel and acquiescence shall arise or is even relevant. 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 16 :- 
9. 
 
Sahibzada Ahmed Raza Kasuri, learned ASC who is 
representing the respondents (the writ petitioners) in other case, who were 
the employees of the Board and whose services have been terminated, 
has argued that their termination is mala fide; they have been dislodged 
by the IMC illegally and without jurisdiction; the respondents are in 
permanent and regular employment of PCB; and that their services are 
governed and regulated by the statutory rules, therefore, it is 
misconceived to argue that such writ petitions filed by them were 
incompetent. 
10. 
 
Heard. Before proceeding further with this opinion, and 
avoiding unnecessary comments, we are constrained to observe that on 
account of the above litigation immense damage has been caused to the 
PCB in particular and Pakistan Cricket in general at all the levels, the 
domestic and international. The individuals might have gained or 
suffered, but it is the institution (PCB) which has been impaired 
excessively 
in 
all 
respects. 
The 
smooth 
functioning, 
prestige, 
prominence of PCB has been seriously hampered. The institution (PCB) 
has been in doldrums and hiccups since the time of commencement of 
this litigation. These all are publicly known facts. The people of 
Pakistan who have great passion for the game of cricket, are really 
concerned and earnestly desire and want PCB to emerge as a strong, 
independent, democratic and accountable institution. Most likely it is 
pursuit of the above objective and in line with the spirit thereof, that the 
Federal Government formed a Committee comprising of Mr. Justice (R) 
Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Mr. Justice (R) Syed Jamshed Ali Shah 
(both the Hon’ble former Judges of the Supreme Court) to formulate and prepare a 
Constitution of PCB. The Constitution as proposed by the Committee 
has now been enforced vide notification dated 10.7.2014 and this was 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 17 :- 
accepted before us by all the stakeholders. Mr. Zaka Ashraf in 
particular (through his counsel) has avowedly accepted the same and for the 
holding of the fresh elections of the Board thereunder. Besides, as a 
Court of Appeal, we can take notice of this vital development which 
seemingly is for the betterment of the Board and the Cricket as a whole, 
in the country. Therefore while formulating this opinion we cannot 
remain oblivious of the subsequent development; the undertaking given 
by Mr. Zaka Ashraf in the Court; his conduct (which shall be highlighted in the 
preceding part of this judgment) after the supersession action, till date; the 
statement of Mr. Sethi made before us; the conduct of other writ 
petitioner 
Mr. 
Arshad; 
the 
legal 
constrains 
of 
the 
employees/respondents in invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the 
learned High Court. Thus we are refraining ourselves from examining 
and dilating upon the vires of the supersession notification, especially 
when on account of the above factors, the main focus of the learned 
counsel for the parties has been on the aforestated points, and full-
fledge arguments were neither addressed nor the record in depth was 
discussed and debated upon in this regard. 
11. 
 
In the context of above, there are three sets of 
respondents before us (1) Mr. Zaka Ashraf, (2) Commodore (R) M. 
Arshad Hussain, (3) the employees of the Board. They all are the 
beneficiaries of the judgment and thus have to defend the same. The 
first in chain is Mr. Ashraf who is a key character of this entire 
controversy. He was removed from the post of Chairmanship of PCB 
and stands restored on the basis of the impugned judgment. Thus he 
is the prime beneficiary of the judgment. Therefore, an important 
question which arises for consideration is, whether he shall be able to 
defend the said judgment on account of his conduct till date, after 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 18 :- 
the supersession order was passed. In this regard the following 
aspects are relevant:- (A) Mr. Zaka Ashraf has never ever personally 
come forward to challenge his removal and supersession of the Board; 
therefore, he shall for all intents and purposes be considered to have 
accepted the supersession and acquiescenced thereto, as per the 
definition of ‘acquiescence’ provided by the Black’s Law Dictionary 8th 
Edition meaning “persons tacit or passive acceptance; implied consent to and act”. 
This is aptly applicable to him; besides the doctrine of acceptance by 
silence can also be legitimately invoked against Mr. Zaka Ashraf in this 
context; (B) on account of his promise and undertaking given to this 
Court which has been highlighted in the preceding part of this opinion, 
Mr. Zaka Ashraf had accepted the new Constitution; the holding of 
fresh elections. And the only reason upon which his objection was 
founded, that Mr. Najam Sethi should not become the Chairman in an 
oblique way, this possibility due to the statement of Mr. Sethi has 
vanished, who has changed his course on account of such objection 
and the grouse is no more available to Mr. Zaka Ashraf now. Therefore 
on account of the above Mr. Zaka Ashraf is estopped by his own 
conduct to take a different stance and defend the impugned judgment; 
(C) the argument that Mr. Zaka Ashraf has made an application to be 
transposed as a co-petitioner in the writ petition filed by Commodore (R) 
M. Arshad Hussain and thus he should be considered to be the co-
petitioner when such request was not declined by the learned High 
Court, this aspect shall be explained in the succeeding part of the 
judgment; (D) regardless, that the impugned judgment is in rem or in 
personam, after the statement of Mr. Sethi and in view of Mr. Zaka 
Ashraf’s undertaking, he is left with no cause to defend the impugned 
judgment. It may be pertinent to mention here that Mr. Imtiaz Rasheed 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 19 :- 
Siddiqui, passingly, has also argued that according to the provisions of 
Section 4 of the Sports (Development and Control) Ordinance, 1962, 
the Federal Government though can give a Constitution for the first 
time for a Sports Board created under the provisions of the 
Ordinance ibid, but there is no power in the said Ordinance enabling 
the Federal Government to make any amendment in such 
Constitution or to substitute that Constitution with a new one. And 
that too, with an object to divest and deprive the key office holders 
from their vested right to occupy the same. We do not find any force 
in this submission, because an authority which has the power to 
enforce law, shall necessarily has the power to repeal the law; to 
amend the same; and even to substitute the law by repealing the 
earlier law on the subject, provided it is otherwise within the 
legislative competence of that authority (note:- it may be pertinent to mention 
here that the above principle in no way should be construed to apply for the amendment etc. 
to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 because such issue is not before 
us for the determination). 
12. 
 
Now attending to the case of Commodore (R) M. Arshad 
Hussain, it seem relevant to refer to the gist of averment of his writ 
petition, wherefrom it transpires that he in fact is agitating for the 
reinstatement of Mr. Zaka Ashraf who was arrayed as respondent No.13 
in the matter, as otherwise his term of office had almost expired by the 
time the writ petition was filed by him i.e. 10.5.2014. The supersession 
had taken place on 10.2.2014, he remained mum for a period of almost 
three months; no explanation is forthcoming on the record on his part 
for the silence for a considerable time, particularly in the situation 
when the IMC after the supersession was constituted only for hundred 
and twenty days and prompt action to challenge the same was 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 20 :- 
expedient; but out of this short period he remained quiet for vital period 
of three months. Thus not only the rule of acquiescence as mentioned 
earlier shall be attracted to his case also; rather the principle of laches 
as has been expounded in the judgment reported as State Bank of 
Pakistan through Governor and another Vs. Imtiaz Ali Khan and 
others (2012 SCMR 280) shall also apply; the relevant part of this 
dictum reads as follows:- 
 
“It is settled principle of our jurisprudence as well 
that delay defeats equity and that equity aids the vigilant 
and not the indolent. In the case of Jawad Mir 
Muhammadi v. Haroon Mirza (PLD 2007 SC 472), a full 
Bench of this Court has held that lathes per se is not a bar 
to the constitutional jurisdiction and question of delay in 
fling would have to be examined with reference to the facts 
of 
each case; question 
of 
delay/lathes in 
filing 
constitutional petition has to be given serious consideration 
and unless a satisfactory and plausible explanation is 
forthcoming for delay in filing constitutional petition, the 
same cannot be overlooked and ignored subject to facts 
and circumstances of each case. 
 
In this very case reference has also been made to 
words of Lord Camden L.C. from the judgment of Smith v. 
Clay (1767) 3 Bro. C.C. 639n at 640n wherein it has been 
observed that “a Court of equity has always refused its aid 
to stale demands, where a party has slept upon his right 
and acquiesced for a great length of time; nothing can call 
forth this Court into activity, but conscience, good faith, 
and reasonable diligence, where these are wanting the 
Court is passive, and does nothing.” Cited judgment also 
refers to a book titled Snell’s Equity by John Meghee 13th 
Edition, wherein at page 35 it has been observed that “the 
doctrine of laches in Courts of equity is not an arbitrary or 
a technical doctrine; where it would be practically unjust 
to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his 
conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as 
equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by this conduct and 
neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, 
yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not 
be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards 
to be asserted in either of these lapse of time and delay are 
most material.” 
Furthermore, on account of the delay in filing the petition by Mr. 
Arshad when his term has almost expired, no other conclusion can be 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 21 :- 
drawn except that he was pursuing the cause for Mr. Zaka Ashraf, and 
was a proxy for him. It was never an honest effort to seek the 
enforcement of any of his right, which even otherwise as mentioned 
earlier had extinguished with the term of his office as a Member of the 
Board of Governors coming to an end on 12.5.2014. It may be 
emphasized that as he was not a member of the superseded Board of 
Governors after 12.5.2014, therefore, he lost his locus standi to 
maintain his petition; which can also be termed to have become 
infructuous when it came up for hearing and decided by the Court on 
15.5.2014. At this point it may not be irrelevant to mention about the 
transposition of Mr. Zaka Ashraf in this petition; he was not transposed 
by a specific order of the Court; transposing cannot be deemed or 
assumed granted as a matter of right or course until an order to that 
effect is passed; transposition was not even legally permissible, because 
when the application for the transposition was made, on account of the 
expiry of the term, Mr. Arshad had lost the locus standi and his petition 
was rendered infructuous; no person should ordinarily be transposed in 
such infructuous case. As regards the case of Mr. Rafiq Bogio is 
concerned, Mr. Imtiaz Rasheed Siddiqui, learned ASC has pointed out 
today that he too was a Member of the Board of Governors who had 
filed an independent Writ Petition No.2313/2014. We have checked up 
with the office of the Islamabad High Court this petition was filed on 
12.5.2014 and was never fixed for hearing along with the other 
connected matters and decided accordingly; even otherwise this matter 
is not before us. Besides, we have been apprised by the Legal Advisor to 
the PCB Mr. Taffazaul H. Rizvi, ASC that Mr. Bogio was appointed the 
Member of the Board on the recommendation of Mr. Zaka Ashraf. This 
petition again thus can be inferred to be proxy for Mr. Zaka Ashraf, who 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 22 :- 
for the reasons best known to him has always been shy to come in the 
forefront to challenge his supersession. Besides this petition is also hit 
by rules of acquiescence, and laches and the rule of acceptance by 
silence as well. 
13. 
 
As regards the other respondents are concerned, without 
going into the question whether a collateral attack could be made by 
them qua the supersession of the Board, when primarily they were 
aggrieved of their termination orders. Suffice it to say that these 
petitions were liable to be dismissed for two simple reasons firstly that 
their services were not governed by any statutory rules and thus their 
writ petitions were not competent in terms of the law laid down in the 
judgment reported Abdul Wahab and others Vs. HBL and others 
(2013 SCMR 1383), secondly, the employment(s) of the said 
respondents admittedly was contractual in nature and their services 
were terminated after due notice as per their contractual terms and 
conditions of service. And even on this account the writ petitions were 
incompetent and had to fail. It may be added here, that their 
termination(s) was made by the competent authority in the Board; for 
example in the case of Arbab Altaf Hussain, as stated earlier, notice was 
served upon him and ultimately his service was terminated by Director 
HR & A, who as per the Board’s non-statutory rules, was the competent 
(authority) to do so. Besides to their extent the rule of exercise of de facto 
jurisdiction was attracted even if the supersession of the Board was 
assumed to be bad in law. So the writ petitions filed by all other 
respondents, as mentioned earlier, were liable to be dismissed on these 
scores. 
14. 
 
For what has been stated above, we by converting these 
petitions into appeals, allow the same and the impugned judgment of 
Civil Petitions No.784, 853 to 876 of 2014 & 
Criminal Original Petitions No.48 & 54 of 2014 
 
-: 23 :- 
the High Court is set aside. All the writ petitions filed by the 
respondents (the writ petitioners) shall stand dismissed. However, before 
parting it may be observed that all the employees of the Board who had 
challenged their termination orders, but have failed by virtue of this 
decision may approach the new Board constituted after the elections 
are held, as envisaged by the new Constitution, within one month by 
filing representations to the new Management of the Board, and such 
Board/Management shall finally decide about the fate of their 
employment; which decision shall be conclusive by all means. 
Cr.O.Ps.No.48 & 54/2014: 
15. 
 
In the light of the decision rendered in the main petitions, 
these criminal original petitions have lost efficacy and are accordingly 
dismissed. 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Lahore, the 
21st July, 2014 
Not Approved For Reporting 
Waqas Naseer/* 
