 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.2482 OF 2020 
(On appeal against order dated 09.09.2020  
passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in  
Writ Petition No.39841 of 2020.) 
 
 
Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, 
Ministry of Energy (Power Division), 
Islamabad and others  
… 
Petitioners 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Shafiq ul Hassan and others  
… Respondents 
 
 
 
For the Petitioners 
: 
Mr. Aamir Rehman, Addl. AG Pak. 
 
 
 
For the Respondents  
: 
Mr. Shohaib Shaheen, ASC. 
Syed Khawar Ameer Bokhari, ASC. 
Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Ch., AOR. 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
02.10.2020 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
 
 
Umar Ata Bandial, J. The learned Additional Attorney 
General has challenged an interim order dated 09.09.2020 passed 
in writ petition filed by the respondent No.1, a temporary stopgap 
appointee to the post of CEO, FESCO whereby his transfer order 
dated 28.08.2020 has been suspended. It appears this was done 
without obtaining the response of the Federal Government or the 
concerned authorities namely, FESCO and PEPCO. The said order 
also admitted the writ petition by the respondent No.1 to regular 
hearing. The first ground is the violation of FESCO’s transfer 
policy. FESCO is a limited company and does not have any 
statutory rules governing the terms and conditions of service of its 
Civil Petition No.2482/2020 
 
-:2:-
employees. The learned Additional Attorney General accordingly 
states that the writ petition is not maintainable as the said transfer 
policy is non-statutory in character. The second ground noted in 
the impugned order is that respondent No.2, Federal Secretary,  
Ministry of Energy (Power) Division was incompetent to pass the 
order dated 28.08.2020. It is submitted by the Additional Attorney 
General that the FESCO is a wholly owned company of the Federal 
Government. That under sections 187 and 190(2) of the 
Companies Act, 2017 the Federal Government has power to remove 
the appointed Chief Executive of a company. In the present case 
the respondent was a temporary stopgap appointee without any 
legal entitlement to retain the office. As such the intervention by 
the Federal Government was perfectly valid. On the aforesaid two 
questions the writ petition was admitted to hearing and the 
impugned order was suspended ad infinitum. The learned 
Additional Attorney General submits that the impugned order 
suffers from legal defects on merits and even otherwise a writ 
petition filed at the instance of an employee of the company with 
non-statutory rules of service was not maintainable. 
2. 
 
We notice that the suspension of the respondent’s 
transfer order has created an anomalous situation because as 
shown by the learned Additional Attorney General, a successor 
temporary appointee to the post of CEO, FESCO was notified on 
4.9.2020 and was approved by the Board of Directors of the 
Company on 5.9.2020. This aspect was not noticed by the learned 
Single Bench while suspending the impugned order.  
3. 
 
Be that as it may, the grant of interim relief which has 
the effect of permanence is violative of the rule laid down by this 
Civil Petition No.2482/2020 
 
-:3:-
Court in the case of Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Muhammad 
Zaman Khan (1997 SCMR 1508). The constitutional jurisdiction by 
Superior Courts must be exercised according to the settled 
principles of law. Granting longevity to a suspensory order without 
hearing the other side is, if at all, done exceptionally. These are 
words of caution that are necessary for ensuring the majesty of the 
law and preserving public trust in the courts of law. Having said 
that, it is also the policy of this Court to interfere with interim 
orders passed by the High Court only exceptionally. This would be 
in cases of serious violation of the law or wrongful exercise of 
jurisdiction. 
4. 
 
Regardless of the weight of the objections by the 
petitioner, we consider that the learned Single Judge/the 
Honourable Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court would be 
gracious enough to take the aforementioned observation into 
consideration for deciding the pending petition finally in the week 
commencing 05.10.2020. If he is preoccupied with other matters 
then the writ petition shall be fixed for hearing before the 
Companies Bench of the Lahore High Court in the said week for 
decision of the matter. Disposed of.         
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad,  
02.10.2020 
Naveed/Irshad Hussain 
NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING.   
