IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
      (Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial 
 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.545 TO 550 OF 2015 
(Against the judgment/order dated 17.4.2015 of the Lahore High Court, 
Lahore passed in W.Ps. No.7955, 5323 and 8008 of 2015) 
 
1. 
LDA through its D.G. 
 
 
    
(in C.As.545, 547 & 548/2015) 
2. 
Province of Punjab through Chief  
 
Secretary, Punjab & another 
   
   
(in C.A.546/2015) 
3. 
Province of Punjab through Secretary 
 
Housing Urban Development, Lahore    
(in C.As.549 & 550/2015) 
…Appellant(s)  
VERSUS 
 
1. 
Ms. Imrana Tiwana and others  
 
   
(in C.As.545 & 546/2015) 
2. 
Fahad Malik etc.  
 
 
 
   
(in C.As.547 & 549/2015) 
3. 
Lahore Conversation Society, etc.    
 
(in C.As.548 & 550/2015) 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the appellant(s) : 
 
Kh. Haris Ahmed, Sr. ASC 
  
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mustafa Ramday, ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Asrar Saeed, Chief Engineer, LDA 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Nawaz Manik, Director Law EPA, Punjab 
 
 
 
 
 
(in C.As.545, 547 & 548/2015) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Khurram Mumtaz Hashmi, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Tariq Aziz, AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
(in C.As.546, 549 & 550/2015) 
 
For the respondent(s): 
 
Mr. Salman Akram Raja, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent No.1 in person 
 
 
 
 
 
(in C.As.545 & 546/2015) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mirza Mahmood Ahmed, ASC 
(for respondent No.1 in C.As.547/2015) 
Respondent No.1 in person 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Raza Kazim, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
(for respondent No.1 in C.As.548 & 550/2015) 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent No.1 in person 
 
On Court’s notice: 
Mr.Salman Aslam Butt,  
Attorney General for Pakistan 
Mr. Razzak A. Mirza, Addl. AG Punjab.  
Mr. Mudassir Khalid Abbasi, Asst. AG, Punjab 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
22.06.2015 to 25.06.2015, 29.06.2015 to 03.07.2015,  
06.07.2015 to 08.07.2015 
final C.As.545 to 550 of 2015 
2 
O R D E R 
 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J. – For the reasons provided herein and for the 
detailed reasons to be recorded later and subject to such reasons assigned in the 
detailed judgment, the observation made and the opinion expressed therein and the 
guidelines subscribed/provided in the said judgment, these appeals are partly 
allowed in the following terms: 
 
i) 
Elected Local Governments are presently not in existence in 
the Province of Punjab. Their duties and functions are being 
performed by the Provincial Government through its 
agencies. The disputed Signal Free Corridor Project was 
conceived by an agency of the Provincial Government, 
LDA, in the year 2014 and included in its budget allocation 
for 2014-15. Construction of the project was awarded to the 
Contractor on 19.02.2015, who had already undertaken 
construction in the value of Rs.60 million before the interim 
restraint order was issued by the learned High Court on 
06.03.2015.  In the vacuum resulting from the absence of an 
elected Lahore Metropolitan Corporation, the initiation, 
approval and execution of the disputed Signal Free 
Corridor project by the Provincial Government through its 
agency, LDA, is held to be valid. The said project may 
accordingly be completed subject to provision of additional 
facilities for pedestrians, inter alia, including road crossing 
and passes at intervals of one-kilometer or less along the 
project road distance.  
 
ii) 
Subject, inter alia, to the criteria of spillover, economies of 
scale, effectiveness as shall be determined in the detailed 
reasons by the Court, any new project falling within the 
domain of Lahore Metropolitan Corporation for approval 
or execution shall not be undertaken by the Provincial 
Government or its agency without prior consultation and 
consent, unless withheld without justified reasons, as the 
case may be, of the elected Lahore Metropolitan 
Corporation in respect of such project.  
  
final C.As.545 to 550 of 2015 
3 
iii) 
Article 140A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan casts a mandatory obligation on the Provinces to 
establish 
Local 
Governments 
possessing 
meaningful 
authority and responsibility in the political arena, 
administrative and financial matters. It is the duty of a 
Province through the Provincial Government and the 
Provincial Assembly to purposefully empower Local 
Governments in the Province so as to comply with their 
mandatory 
obligation 
under 
Article 
140A 
of 
the 
Constitution.    
  
iv) 
In the present case, the powers in relation to master plan 
and spatial planning historically belonging to Lahore 
Metropolitan Corporation have been superimposed with 
similar functions vesting in LDA under Provincial law. To 
the extent of conflict in the exercise of their respective 
powers and functions by the two bodies or on account of 
legal provisions having overriding effect, Article 140A of 
the Constitution confers primacy upon the authority 
vesting in an elected Local Government over the powers 
conferred by law on the Provincial Government or an 
agency thereof. Notwithstanding the above, the Provincial 
Government is in any case under a duty to establish a 
harmonious working relationship with an elected Local 
Government wherein respect is accorded to the views and 
decisions of the latter. Accordingly, Section 46 of the Lahore 
Development Authority Act, 1975, purporting to override 
conflicting action taken by an elected Local Government, is 
held to be against the scheme of the Constitution and 
should either be read down or declared ultra vires as 
determined in the detailed judgment.   
  
v) 
Section 5(6) of the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 
1997 imposes a mandatory duty on the Provincial 
Government to constitute Advisory Committee under the 
said Act. This Committee is meant to assist the 
Environmental Protection Agency in evaluating the 
environmental impact of projects under consideration. The 
failure by the Provincial Government to constitute the said 
final C.As.545 to 550 of 2015 
4 
Committee violates its statutory duty. However, in the 
present case the impugned judgment has not attended any 
objection to the EIA on its merits, nor have the respondents 
highlighted any objection that has remained unattended 
and yet is fatal to the EIA. Moreover, the right of appeal 
and further remedies on the merits of the EIA approval 
available under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 
1997, have not been availed by the objecting respondents. 
The EIA cannot be struck down upon presumption or mere 
apprehension.  
  
vi) 
It is improper that disparaging references are made in the 
impugned judgment to a learned senior counsel, who had 
objected to the composition of the Bench. Contents of 
paragraphs 10(d), 21 & 22 in the impugned judgment 
containing such remarks are accordingly expunged. 
Equally, the academic expositions on the concepts of 
subsidiarity and federalism within the federating units, in 
the present case a Province, cannot be made grounds by the 
impugned judgment for striking down statutory law. The 
only touchstone for this purpose is conflict of statutory law 
with the provisions of the Constitution. Consequently, the 
said grounds adopted by the impugned judgment are 
rejected.     
 
vii) 
The action proposed in the impugned judgment to be taken 
against the officials of the LDA or any other person as 
envisaged by paragraph 100A thereof is also set aside.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad,  
08.07.2015 
Irshad Hussain/* 
