Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa and lawyer Naeem Bukhari had a bitter exchange during the hearing on the review petitions of Monal Restaurant and others in the case of termination of commercial activities from Margalla National Park in the Supreme Court.
A three-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, heard the review petitions related to the closure of various restaurants including Monal. Bukhari came to the rostrum.
At the beginning of the hearing, Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa remarked that the Supreme Court gave a decision with the consent of all the parties, it was asked to finish the restaurants in 3 months with the consent, then what did the review talk about?
On this, lawyer Naeem Bukhari said that he did not ask to close the restaurant willingly but spoke under compulsion, we had 2 options in front of us either to close the restaurant ourselves or else it will be demolished, my client Dr. Muhammad Amjad 66% share. There are holders who have not been heard, my client was out of the country when the Supreme Court gave its decision.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan asked how you can do business in the National Park. How can a commercial operation take place in a wildlife sanctuary? Do you have a license to do business? To which Naeem Bukhari replied that yes, there is a license, FIA also sent notices in 2018, we were sent a notice to increase the rent four times, if there was no license, why would the notice come?
Later, bitter sentences were exchanged between Chief Justice Qazi Faiz and lawyer Naeem Bukhari.
Lawyer Naeem Bukhari said that what happened in 1954? On this, Justice Qazi Faiz remarked that do not point fingers at us on matters before our birth.
On this, the lawyer said that if you think that you will scare me by raising your voice, then I am not going to be scared. You yourself have written everything in the Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto case. , the Supreme Court in the Bhutto Reference judgment wrote that what happened in the past.
Justice Jamal Mandukhel remarked that Mr. Bukhari! Let’s admit our mistakes or not, to which the lawyer said that we were not given an effective hearing. In the past, FIA has conducted an investigation against the restaurant owners. The investigation revealed that the owners have not committed any crime.
On this, Justice Qazi Faiz Isa inquired that Mr. Bukhari, are you serious? What does the FIA do with it? Many times people get a case against themselves, I am impressed by the services you are getting from the state, it is a matter of fundamental rights, the rights of animals in the national park.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan said that there was a decision of the Supreme Court and the High Court, yet you continued to do commercial activities, you continued to run a restaurant in violation of the laws, just read your license with an annual fee of 11,000.
To this, lawyer Naeem Bukhari replied that in 1999 there was 11,000 rent which was increased later, with this the arguments of Naeem Bukhari were completed.
Later, the lawyer told the court that my son has studied abroad and is considering himself as a lawyer. But when Naeem Bukhari again pointed towards his son, the seat was found empty.
Lawyer LaMontana said, “Thank you for listening to me. My son may have run away.” Justice Jamal Mandukhel remarked that he may not have been able to impress his son. To be kept.
Judgment reserved
Table of Contents
Later, the Supreme Court reserved its decision on the revision petitions, after the arguments of all the parties’ lawyers were completed.
It should be noted that on June 11, the Supreme Court had ordered the relocation of restaurants within three months from the National Park area, including Monal, located on the beautiful hills of Margalla.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faiz Isa heard the appeal against the January 11, 2022 decision of the Islamabad High Court regarding the sealing and possession of Monal Restaurant.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the High Court order ordering the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board to seal Monal’s premises. was
The High Court had also declared that Monal’s lease agreement with the CDA had come to an end and his contract with the Remount, Veterinary and Farms Directorate on 30 September 2019 was void.
The Supreme Court directed the CDA to facilitate the Monal Group of Companies to shift the restaurant from the present location to a permissible location within three months on priority basis, the Chief Justice said. , the order also asked that all other restaurants located on Pir Sohawa Road be treated similarly.
#case #commercial #activities #Margalla #National #Park #Naeem #Bukhari #Chief #Justices #bitter #words #Pakistan
2024-09-06 02:00:16
Tensions Rise in Supreme Court Hearing: Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa vs. Lawyer Naeem Bukhari Over Monal Restaurant Case
In a dramatic turn of events during a recent Supreme Court hearing, Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa clashed with prominent lawyer Naeem Bukhari. The hearing addressed review petitions concerning the controversial closure of commercial activities, particularly restaurants like Monal, operating within the Margalla National Park. This exchange not only highlights legal tensions but also raises important questions regarding commercial operations within protected wildlife areas.
Background of the Case
The three-member bench, led by Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, convened to revisit decisions relating to the closure of various restaurants, including the popular Monal Restaurant. The Supreme Court had previously mandated the removal of such establishments within three months, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining ecological integrity within national parks.
The review petitions brought forth by Naeem Bukhari indicated dissatisfaction with the earlier ruling. Bukhari, representing Dr. Muhammad Amjad, argued that his client had felt compelled to agree to the closure under duress, as the alternative was a forced demolition of his establishment.
Key Points from the Hearing
- Compulsion vs. Consent: Chief Justice Isa opened the discussion by reflecting on the unanimous decision that mandated the closure of restaurants, questioning the basis for the review petitions. Bukhari contended that consent for closure was obtained under duress, reigniting debates about the legality and ethics of such decisions.
- Commercial Operations in Protected Areas: The Chief Justice posed a critical question: how can commercial businesses thrive in a national park? Bukhari responded, asserting that the restaurant held a valid license. He further elaborated on past notices from the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), which indicated that business activities had been conducted legally.
- Historical Context: The debate took a historical turn when Bukhari referenced past rulings dating back to 1954, prompting an incredulous response from Justice Isa. The exchange became heated as Bukhari declared his resilience against judicial intimidation, asserting that he would not be cowed by confrontational behavior.
- Legal Proceedings and Rights: Justice Jamal Mandukhel pointed out the need to assess accountability in legal proceedings, suggesting an admission of possible oversights. Bukhari maintained that his clients were not provided a fair hearing throughout the legal process, alleging no wrongdoing by the restaurant owners.
- Fundamental Rights and Wildlife Protection: Chief Justice Isa emphasized the significance of protecting wildlife and fundamental rights within national parks, underscoring that commercial activities must not infringe upon these rights. This highlights a crucial aspect of the law—balancing human commercial interests with environmental conservation.
The Court’s Dilemma
The Supreme Court is now faced with the challenge of balancing the interests of business owners with those of environmental preservation. As the environment becomes increasingly threatened, judicial decisions in cases like these could set important precedents regarding the legality of operations in protected areas.
Conclusion: Verdict Reserved
After all arguments were presented, the Supreme Court reserved its decision on the review petitions. The implications of this case extend beyond mere legalities; they touch on the broader conversation about sustainable development and ecological preservation in Pakistan.
The case raises fundamental questions: Should businesses operating in national parks be given leeway, or should they be curtailed to preserve national heritage? As this case unfolds, the decision will undoubtedly guide future policies on commercial activities in ecological sanctuaries, potentially shaping how Pakistan approaches the delicate balance between development and conservation.
Relevant Keywords
- Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa
- Naeem Bukhari
- Supreme Court Hearing
- Monal Restaurant Case
- Margalla National Park
- Wildlife Protection
- Commercial Activities
- Environmental Law
- Pakistan Judiciary
- Legal Precedents
This article seeks to inform readers about the recent hearing and its implications on the balance between commercial endeavors and environmental stewardship in Pakistan, making it crucial for those interested in environmental law, wildlife conservation, and judicial proceedings. Stay tuned for updates as the court deliberates its verdict, which will hold significant influence for all stakeholders involved.
