 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
( APPELLATE JURISDICTION ) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
Mr. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan  
 
 
CONSTITUTION PETITIONS NO.26 AND 28 OF 2016 
Muhammad Tariq Asad   (Const.P.26/16) 
Siraj-ul-Haq,  
   
(Const.P.28/16) 
… 
Petitioner(s)  
Ameer Jamaat-e-Islami 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
Federation of Pakistan  
(in both cases)  
… 
Respondent 
 
 
 
For the petitioner    
 
(Const. P.26/2016) 
: 
Nemo. 
(Const. P.28/2016) 
: 
Mr. M. Ishtiaq Ahmed Raja, ASC  
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, ASC  
 For the respondent : 
Malik Javed Iqbal Wains,  
 
 
 
 
Addl. Attorney General for Pakistan  
 
 
 
 
Raja Rizwan Ibrahim Satti,  
 
 
 
 
Spl. Prosecutor, NAB 
Date of hearing 
: 
09.06.2023 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.- 
CONST. PETITION NO.26 OF 2016. This petition was filed by Tariq Asad, 
Advocate, in person, but today nobody has turned up to pursue this 
matter. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in Const. 
Petition No.28/2016 that petitioner Tariq Asad has passed away. In that 
eventuality, this petition is dismissed due to non-prosecution. All Civil 
Misc. Applications concerning to this Const. Petition are disposed of as 
having become infructuous.  
 
CONST. PETITION NO.28 OF 2016. 
  
2. 
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though, the question 
of maintainability under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, would have been relevant but we note that 
vide order dated 03.11.2016, this issue had been decided and it was 
found that all the petitions (fixed on that date including this petition) 
were maintainable. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 
Const.P.26&28/16 
2
petitioners as well as the respondents also agree that this no longer is an 
issue requiring determination. 
3. 
Certain queries are put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as 
under: 
1) 
How and under what circumstances this petition was 
de-linked from the other petitions at the request of 
learned counsel for the petitioner and what was the 
purpose for requesting to detach these petitions from 
others? We note that this petition was filed much 
earlier than those petitions which were later decided 
by a 5-Member Bench of this Court; 
2) 
Whether the matter in hand is not covered by the 
Income Tax Ordinance 2001 (Ordinance 2001) with 
regard to the tax liability of the concerned persons?  
3) 
Whether the liability of tax is not within the purview of 
the officers of Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) under 
the Ordinance 2001? 
4) 
Whether the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), directions 
of SBP and the Foreign Exchange Manual are not 
relevant with regard to money sent abroad for 
purchase of said properties? 
5) 
Whether FBR, SBP and other relevant departments do 
not have their own hierarchy for deciding matters and 
their final orders may ultimately be challenged before 
the High Court and this Court? 
6) 
Whether the petitioner approached the SBP, FBR, FIA, 
Anti-Corruption Department, etc. against the persons 
named in Panama Leaks? 
7) 
Whether in the presence of existing statutory bodies 
and institutions, a commission as sought should be 
constituted for inquiring into the matter in hand?  
8) 
Will the working of the said statutory bodies not be 
affected if the proposed commission opines otherwise? 
9) 
Whether an order for the constitution of a commission 
can be passed without issuing notice to or hearing 
those 436 persons named in the Panama Leaks?  
Const.P.26&28/16 
3
 
4. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time, in order to answer 
the above said queries. With consent, to come up after one month.      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the  
09.06.2023 
M.Saeed/* 
