IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(REVIEW/APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH 
 
CIVIL REVIEW PETITIONS NO.412 AND 413 
OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEALS NO.1223 AND 
1224 OF 2014 
(On review of this Court’s order dated 23.9.2014 passed 
in C.As.No.1223 & 1224/2014) 
 
AND 
 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.1223 AND 1224 OF 2014 
(Against the judgments dated 23.10.2012 of the Lahore 
High Court, Lahore passed in W.P. No.3053/2012) 
 
AND 
 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO.2061 AND 2189 OF 2014 
(Against the judgments dated 8.7.2014/2.10.2014 of the 
Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in C.M.No.1/2014 in 
W.P.No.19769/2014 and W.P.No.19769/2014) 
 
 
C.R.P.412/2014: 
Pakistan Olympic Association through its President 
Vs. Nadeem Aftab Sindhu etc. 
 
 
C.R.P.413/2014: 
Pakistan Olympic Association through its President 
Vs. Muhammad Khalid Mehmood etc. 
 
 
C.A.1223/2014: 
Pakistan Olympic Association through its President 
Vs. Nadeem Aftab Sindhu etc. 
 
 
C.A.1224/2014: 
Muhammad Khalid Mahmood etc. Vs. Nadeem Aftab 
Sindhu etc. 
 
 
C.P.2061/2014: 
Federation 
of 
Pakistan 
M/o 
Inter-Provincial 
Coordination through its Secretary, Islamabad and 
another Vs. Pakistan Olympic Association through 
its Secretary General, Lahore etc. 
 
 
C.P.2189/2014: 
Khawaja Farooq Saeed, Secretary General Pakistan 
Olympic Association Lahore Vs. Federation of 
Pakistan through M/o Inter-Provincial Coordination 
through its Secretary, Islamabad etc.  
 
 
For the petitioner(s)/ 
appellant(s): 
Mr. Muhammad Ahmed Qayyum, ASC 
(On behalf of Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Sr. ASC) 
(In C.R.Ps.412 & 413/2014 and C.P.2189/2014) 
 
Mr. Muhammad Ali Raza, ASC 
Mr. Tariq Aziz, AOR 
(In C.A.1223/2014) 
 
Kh. Haris Ahmed, Sr. ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
(In C.A.1224/2014) 
 
Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, ASC 
Mr. Mahmood A. Sheikh, AOR 
(In C.P.2061/2014) 
C.A. No.1223/2014 etc.  
 
- 2 - 
 
For the respondent(s): 
Mr. Muhammad Ali Raza, ASC 
(For respondent No.5 in C.R.P.412/2014; for respondent No.26 
in C.R.P.413/2014 & for respondent No.4 in C.A.1224/2014) 
 
 
On Court’s notice: 
Mr. Sohail Mahmood, DAG 
Mr. Qasim Ali Chohan, Addl.A.G. Punjab 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
14.11.2018 
 
JUGDMENT 
 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, CJ.- The brief facts of the instant 
matters are that the Pakistan Olympic Association (Association) is an 
autonomous society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 
(the Act) which is affiliated under the Olympic Charter with the 
International Olympics Committee 
(IOC) as the National Olympic 
Committee for Pakistan (subsequently, it also became member of the Association of 
National Olympic Committees and the Olympic Council of Asia). The background of the 
appeals (C.As. No.1223 and 1224/2014) is that the elections held on 04.02.2012 
for all the posts within the Association, except that of the President, were 
not held through secret ballot but instead through a show of hands in 
contravention of Rule 37 of the Pakistan Olympic Association Election 
Rules, 2012 (the Rules). Aggrieved, respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition 
before the learned High Court which was accepted and the elections were 
declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. This judgment was 
challenged by the Association before this Court through a petition wherein 
leave was granted vide order dated 23.09.2014 to consider the 
maintainability of the writ petition against the Association in terms of 
Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 
(the Constitution). The said order also granted the following interim relief:- 
 
“As conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners, 
pursuant to the judgment under challenge, they would not 
claim themselves to the office bearers of the Pakistan 
Olympic Association. Besides, for the offices except the 
President, fresh elections shall be conducted by the Pakistan 
Olympic Association, not by show of hands but by secret 
ballot under the rules. An independent election body for 
conducting elections shall be selected by the general body of 
C.A. No.1223/2014 etc.  
 
- 3 - 
 
the Pakistan Olympic Association; Mr. Arif Hassan shall act 
as the President and represent the Pakistan Olympic 
Association at all forums, if representation is so needed; the 
elections shall be held within 75 days from today and 
compliance report in this regard shall be submitted to this 
Court.”  
 
In compliance of the above interim order, the Association submitted a 
report (vide C.M.A. No. 5916/2016) stating therein that fresh elections had been 
announced and an independent election commission was notified. 
However,  review petitions (C.R.Ps. No.412 and 413/2014) were filed against the 
said interim order. It is also pertinent to note that the Association had 
filed W.P. No.19769/2014 before the Lahore High Court against the 
Federation of Pakistan, etc. seeking, inter alia, a declaration to the effect 
that Syed Arif Hassan had no authority to present himself as the President 
of the Association and that the letters dated 13.06.2014 and 04.07.2014 
issued by the Director General, Pakistan Sports Board (PSB) were without 
lawful authority. The learned High Court passed an interim order dated 
08.07.2014 suspending the two noted letters of the PSB which (interim order) 
was challenged by the Federation before this Court in C.P. No.2061/2014. 
Thereafter, the learned High Court passed an order dated 02.10.2014 in 
the said writ petition withdrawing the interim relief it granted vide order 
dated 08.07.2014 in light of the leave granting/interim order of this Court 
dated 23.09.2014 passed in C.Ps. No.245 and 489-L/2013 (now C.As. No.1223 
and 1224/2014) and adjourning the matter sine die. This order dated 
02.10.2014 was then challenged before this Court in C.P. No.2189/2014. 
Be that as it may, the main questions of law arising from the instant 
matters stand on the following pivotal questions of maintainability:- 
i) 
Whether the Association was a ‘person’ performing 
public functions in connection with the affairs of the 
Federation under Article 199(1)(a) of the Constitution? 
 
ii) 
Whether a writ is maintainable against the Association 
in terms of Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution?  
C.A. No.1223/2014 etc.  
 
- 4 - 
 
The above questions of law shall be dealt with separately in this opinion 
and the arguments of the learned counsel shall be reflected therein.  
 
i) 
Whether the Association was ‘person’ performing public functions in connection 
with the affairs of the Federation under Article 199 of the Constitution? 
 
2. 
 
Mr. Ali Raza, learned counsel for the appellant in C.A. 
No.1223/2014 commenced his arguments by unequivocally stating that 
the Association is a private registered society affiliated with an 
international private body, the IOC; it is neither controlled nor funded by 
the Federal Government nor does it have any public function. The 
Association merely represents Pakistan for the purposes of participation in 
events held by the IOC internationally as well at national forums and it is 
admitted by the Federal Government that it exercises no control over the 
Association. The learned High Court arrived at the conclusion that the 
Association was a ‘person' under Article 199 of the Constitution on the 
mistaken assumption that because the participating athletes carry the 
national flag and the sports aspirations of the country, it consequently 
exercises a public function and hence is a public functionary in terms of 
Article 199 ibid. He argued that this view is not in consonance with the 
law laid down by this Court in Salahuddin and 2 others Vs. Frontier 
Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd. Tokht Bhai and 10 others (PLD 1975 
SC 244), Pakistan International Airline Corporation and others Vs. 
Tanweer-ur-Rehman and others (PLD 2010 SC 676), Anoosha Shaigan 
Vs. Lahore University of Management Sciences and others (PLD 2007 
SC 568), Pakistan Red Crescent Society and another Vs. Syed Nazir 
Gillani (PLD 2005 SC 806), and Abdul Wahab and others Vs. HBL and 
others (2013 SCMR 1383).  
3.  
 
The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the 
learned High Court based its decision on the sound observation that the 
athletes selected by the Association represented the Pakistani flag; 
C.A. No.1223/2014 etc.  
 
- 5 - 
 
moreover, according to the aims and objectives laid down in paragraphs 
No.2, 5, 7, 9 and 17 of the Constitution of the Association it, inter alia, has 
the exclusive authority to approve and guarantee the candidature of any 
city or organization of Pakistan for hosting or staging the Olympic or other 
games and has the exclusive authority to represent Pakistan therein. 
Additionally, he submitted that the Association is exempted from Capital 
Value Tax (CVT) and relied on Article VI of the Association’s Constitution 
which provides that the Association’s General Council will comprise of 
almost all federations affiliated and controlled by the Government. He 
emphasized that by reason of the international impact of the Association, 
the instant appeal is a matter of national dignity. He further laid emphasis 
on the fact that the Association finds mention in the Revised National 
Sports Policy, 2005 (Sports Policy) and has been recognized as one of the 
main sports organizing agencies alongside the PSB and the National 
Sports Federation, etc. Moreover, under paragraph No.5 of the Sports 
Policy, all national games are to be organized as per the policy of the 
Association and in paragraph No.11 of the Sports Policy, restrictions are 
being imposed on the manner of elections in the Association. Further, the 
participating athletes of the Association are fully funded by the Federal 
Government at these international/national events. According to him, the 
crucial question is whether the Association’s functions affects or are 
exercised with regard to the affairs of the Federation, the answer to which 
is in the affirmative. In support of his submissions he distinguished the 
present case from the cases of Anoosha Shaigan (supra) and Abdul Wahab 
(supra) arguing that unlike in these matters, the Association despite being a 
private body is not merely affecting its students or employees but is in 
fact, to the exclusion of others, affecting the international image of sports 
in Pakistan and collaterally affects the attached sentiments of countless 
citizens. 
C.A. No.1223/2014 etc.  
 
- 6 - 
 
4. 
 
When questioned as to whether the Association is a public 
functionary and thereby satisfies the function test laid down in the cases 
of Abdul Wahab (supra) and Frontier Sugar Mills (supra), the learned 
counsel for the respondents submitted that the functions and powers 
exercised by the Association are analogous to those of the PSB, and hence 
it can be said to be exercising functions in connection with the affairs of 
the Federation. However, when probed as to whether the Federation 
exercises the same amount of control on the Association as it does on the 
PSB, he responded evasively. Be that as it may, it is an undisputed fact 
that the Association is not controlled by the Federal Government, neither 
is it a statutory body nor has it acquired any affiliation from the PSB. 
However, to answer the question as to whether the Association is 
exercising functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation Article 
199(1)(a) of the Constitution is to be considered in detail in the light of the 
facts of the instant case, which reads as follows:- 
 
Article 199. Jurisdiction of High Court.- (1) Subject to the 
Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other 
adequate remedy is provided by law,- 
(a) 
on the application of any aggrieved party, make an 
order- 
(i) 
directing a person performing, within the territorial 
jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection 
with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a 
local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is 
not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is 
required by law to do; or 
(ii) 
declaring that any act done or proceeding taken 
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court by a 
person performing functions in connection with the 
affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local 
authority has been done or taken without lawful 
authority and is of no legal effect; 
[Emphasis supplied] 
 
There is no cavil to the proposition that unless the Association is a 
‘person’ under Article 199(5) of the Constitution, the threshold of 
C.A. No.1223/2014 etc.  
 
- 7 - 
 
maintainability under Article 199(1)(a) supra will not be met. Therefore, in 
order to conclusively determine whether the Association is a public body 
exercising the functions of the Federation, the function test laid down by 
this Court in Frontier Sugar Mills’ case (supra) must be considered 
wherein it was held that “regulatory control does not make a person performing 
functions in relation to the federation or a province”. This judgment was relied 
upon in Abdul Wahab’s case (supra) in which a six-Member Bench of this 
Court comprising of one of us (Mian Saqib Nisar, J.), while holding that Habib 
Bank Limited was a private entity, observed that:- 
 
“…in order to bring the Bank within the purview and the 
connotation(s) of a ‘person’ and ‘authority’ appearing in 
Articles 199, 199(5) and 199(1)(c) of the Constitution and 
also for the purposes of urging that appropriate order, in the 
nature of a writ can be issued independently by this Court 
under Article 184(3) (Constitution), to the Bank, the learned 
counsel for the petitioners has strenuously relied upon the 
‘function test’…In this context, it may be held that for the 
purposes of resorting to the ‘function test’, two important 
factors are the most relevant i.e. the extent of financial 
interest of the State/Federation in an institution and the 
dominance in the controlling affairs thereof…” 
[Emphasis supplied] 
 
The Association organises National Games, represents Pakistan at 
International sporting events, scrutinises, approves, and guarantees the 
candidature of any city or organisation applying for staging at 
International sporting events, and is also responsible for the promotion 
and development of sports in Pakistan. None of the above functions 
involve the exercise of sovereign power or public power, and do not 
constitute a function or duty of the state. It is not exclusively state 
managed organisations who may bear the Pakistani flag or incorporate it 
into their identity. Therefore no functions of the State involving sovereign 
or public power are being exercised by the Association. While it is true 
that Federal Government approves the selection of contingents and gives 
C.A. No.1223/2014 etc.  
 
- 8 - 
 
its consent to the Association representing Pakistan at international 
events, We do not find that this amounts to executive control. The Federal 
Government does not exercise decision making authority even if the PSB 
is involved in scrutinising and approving teams. Notably, as per paragraph 
No.19 of the aims and objectives provided in the Association’s 
Constitution, “its autonomy, dignity and independence in accordance with the Olympic 
Charter” is not to be compromised. Hence, we are of the opinion that the 
Federal Government does not exercise substantial control on, or have 
dominance in the controlling affairs of, the Association. Finally, the 
Federal Government does provide funding to defray the costs of sending 
contingents to the Olympics, however the private activities and other 
management of the organisation is funded by the Association itself. The 
overall activities of the organisation are independent and the bulk of the 
activities carried out are privately funded. A single activity/undertaking is 
funded by the federal government (i.e. sending teams to the Olympics) and while it 
is an expensive undertaking, it is only part of what the Association does. 
Most importantly, no financial interest of the State lies in the functions 
of the Association.  
Thus, in light of the above precedents it can be concluded that the 
Association does not satisfy the function test laid down by this Court and 
therefore, is not exercising public functions and is not a ‘person’ as per 
Article 199(5) supra. No writ of quo warranto can therefore lie against its 
office holders, nor can a writ lie against the Association in terms of Article 
199(1)(a) supra. Even otherwise, the only affiliation that the Association 
has acquired is that of private bodies such as the IOC which according to 
the Olympic Charter does not require that the affiliating body be a public 
body. Therefore, it is held that the finding of the learned High Court in 
this regard was incorrect; the Association is not a person exercising 
functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation in terms of 
Article 199(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Constitution.  
C.A. No.1223/2014 etc.  
 
- 9 - 
 
ii) 
Whether a writ is maintainable against the Association in terms of Article 
199(1)(c) of the Constitution?  
 
5. 
 
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the 
Association on account of not exercising public functions in connection 
with the Federation is not a public body, and thus no writ can lie against 
it in terms of Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution. On the other hand, the 
learned counsel for the respondents averred that Article 199(1)(c) ibid does 
not require that the ‘person’ against whom a writ is being issued should 
necessarily be performing functions in relation to the affairs of the 
Federation etc. According to him, Article 199(1)(c) ibid, unlike Article 
199(1)(a) supra, owing to the use of the word ‘including’ applies to all 
persons [unless excluded under Article 199(5) of the Constitution] and not just those 
performing functions in relation to the affairs of the Federation etc. 
Relying on the judgment reported as Don Basco High School Vs. The 
Assistant Director, EOBI and others (PLD 1989 SC 128) he submitted 
that this Court held therein that the use of the term ‘include’ enlarges the 
scope and meaning of the sentence. Additionally, according to him the 
functions of the Association affects the fundamental rights of the citizens 
of Pakistan (under Articles 9, 14, 17, 18, and 25 of the Constitution) since the manner in 
which the Association carries out its affairs involves the nation’s image in 
international sports, therefore, the present case falls squarely within the 
ambit of Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution and any actions of the 
Association may be subject to judicial review in terms thereof .   
6.  
 
At this juncture it is expedient to consider Article 199(1)(c) 
supra which is reproduced hereinbelow for ease of reference:- 
 
Article 199. Jurisdiction of High Court.- (1) Subject to the 
Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other 
adequate remedy is provided by law,- 
(c)  
on the application of any aggrieved person, make an 
order giving such directions to any person or authority, 
including any Government exercising any power or 
C.A. No.1223/2014 etc.  
 
- 10 - 
 
performing any function in, or in relation to, any territory 
within the jurisdiction of that Court as may be appropriate 
for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights 
conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II. 
[Emphasis supplied] 
 
The true import of this provision from a plain reading thereof is that (subject 
to the Constitution) a High Court is authorized to issue any directions, as may 
be appropriate for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights 
conferred by the Constitution, to any person or authority exercising any 
power or performing any function in (or in relation to) any territory within 
the jurisdiction of that Court (which includes but is not limited to any Government), 
provided two conditions are met: (i) such direction is made pursuant to an 
application of any aggrieved person, in other words, the High Court cannot 
do so suo motu; and (b) no other adequate remedy is provided by law. 
However, this provision has to be read with Article 199(5) of the 
Constitution which provides as under:- 
 
“(5) 
In this Article, unless the context otherwise requires,- 
“person” includes any body politic or corporate, any 
authority of or under the control of the Federal 
Government or of a Provincial Government, and any Court 
or tribunal, other than the Supreme Court, a High Court or 
a Court or tribunal established under a law relating to the 
Armed Forces of Pakistan…” 
[Emphasis supplied]  
 
The key question is that whether the condition of “of or under the control of the 
Federal Government or of a Provincial Government” applies only to “any authority” 
or will it also apply to “any body politic or corporate” and we find that such 
condition only applies to “any authority” and not “any body politic or corporate”. 
We hold so for the reason that a coma has been used between the two sets 
of phrases, i.e. “any body politic or corporate” and “any authority of or under the 
control of the Federal Government or of a Provincial Government”, which 
differentiates the two; besides, the word “any” is used separately for both 
C.A. No.1223/2014 etc.  
 
- 11 - 
 
sets of phrases. In fact, the word “any” is also used with the third 
phrase/set of bodies, i.e. “Court or tribunal, other than the Supreme Court, a High 
Court or a Court or tribunal established under a law relating to the Armed Forces of 
Pakistan”, creating three distinct categories. Thus, in light of the foregoing 
interpretation, a writ is maintainable under Article 199(1)(c) of the 
Constitution against any person including the body politic or corporate for 
the purpose of enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by 
the Constitution. 
7. 
 
This interpretation is in consonance with the ratio of the 
judgment of this Court reported as Human Rights Commission of 
Pakistan and 2 others Vs. Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 
2009 SC 507) wherein it was held that the amplitude of Article 199(1)(c) 
ibid is wider than the other parts of Article 199 of the Constitution and is 
not restricted to public functionaries only but could extend to private 
parties, as long as there is a question of enforcement of fundamental 
rights under the Constitution:- 
 
“35. …the Jurisdiction of superior courts to enforce 
fundamental 
rights 
under 
Article 
199(1)(c) 
of 
the 
Constitution is not merely exercisable against persons 
performing functions in connection with the affairs of the 
Federation or Province or a local authority but against any 
person or authority including a Government. Some of the 
fundamental rights by their very nature may be impaired by 
private persons and there is no embargo on the powers of 
the High Court to issue such directions as may be 
appropriate for enforcement of such rights.”  
[Emphasis supplied] 
 
Furthermore, in Abdul Wahab’s case (supra) it was held as under:- 
 
“8. 
…Fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution 
have a very significant and pivotal position and are the most 
sacred of the rights conferred upon the citizens/persons of 
the country and thus the regard, security and the 
enforcement of these rights is one of the primary duties of the 
C.A. No.1223/2014 etc.  
 
- 12 - 
 
State and its institutions at all the levels…In view of the 
sanctity and the importance of these rights and for the 
safeness and the safeguard (saving those from a slightest 
impairment) thereof the Constitution itself in a noteworthy 
way, has provided a specific and a special mechanism, in 
terms 
of 
Article 
199(1)(c) 
by 
virtue 
whereof 
notwithstanding the powers of the High Courts under 
Article 199(1)(a) and (b) an extraordinary power has been 
conferred on it “to make an order giving directions to any 
person etc…as may be appropriate for the enforcement of the 
fundamental rights conferred by Chapter I of Part-II”…” 
[Emphasis supplied] 
 
In other words, Article 199(1)(c) supra is contingent on the fact that the 
matter should involve the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed 
under the Constitution. In the instant case, the fundamental rights being 
relied on by the learned counsel in making such argument are Articles 9, 
14, 17, 18, and 25 of the Constitution, all of which do not seem relevant in 
the instant matter. We do not find that the internal functioning of the 
Association, particularly the method of elections of certain posts thereof, 
deprives persons of the right to life or liberty (Article 9 of the Constitution), 
violates the dignity of man (Article 14 of the Constitution), curtails the right to 
freedom of association (Article 17 of the Constitution), trade, business or 
profession (Article 18 of the Constitution), or is discriminatory in any manner 
whatsoever (Article 25 of the Constitution). Therefore, we do not find that a writ is 
maintainable against the Association under Article 199(1)(c) ibid. 
8. 
 
Before parting it is found pertinent to mention that indeed, 
the promotion of sports in Pakistan holds paramount importance and the 
participation of athletes in international sports events is a matter of 
immense pride and prestige for the entire nation, however, in the tide of 
such emotions we cannot lose sight of the fact that a body which is 
operating independently and is admittedly not being substantially 
controlled by either the Federal or Provincial Government or any other 
 
C.A. No.1223/2014 etc.  
 
- 13 - 
 
governmental body and considering the fact that the instant matter does 
not involve a violation of any of the fundamental rights, the internal 
functions of the Association cannot, in the facts and circumstances, be 
subjected to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution. 
Therefore, it is held that the decision of the learned High Court in holding 
a writ to be maintainable against the Association was erroneous and 
cannot be sustained.  
9. 
 
For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeals are allowed and 
the impugned judgment is set aside. As the main appeals stand decided, 
the review petitions, civil petitions and miscellaneous applications have 
lost their relevance and are all disposed of accordingly. For the redressal 
of any grievances with regards to the internal functioning of the 
Association including its elections, the aggrieved may, if so advised, 
approach the courts of plenary jurisdiction to seek the appropriate remedy 
as provided under the law. 
 
 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Announced on open Court 
on 1.1.2019 at Islamabad 
Approved for reporting 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
M. Azhar Malik/* 
