IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

C.P.L.A. No. _____________ of 2007

Habibullah Energy Limited, Petitioner

VERSUS

Water & Power Development Authority and others Respondents

CONCISE STATEMENT

Subject Matter & Law : The Zonal Labour Union, Lakhra and others impugned the grant
of lease of the Lakhra Coal Power Plant for a 20 years period by Respondent No.1
to Respondent No.6 in Constitutional Petition No.D-382 of 2006 before the High
Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad. Vide Order, dated, 18-10-2006, the
Honourable High Court was pleased to restrain the Respondents from proceeding
further in the matter. This injunctive order was modified to some extent on 09-05-
2007. However the High Court continued the injunctive order restraining handing
over of possession to Respondent No.6. On 06-11-2006 the instant Petitioners filed
Constitutional Petition No.D-439 of 2006 before High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench,
Hyderabad. Subsequently, vide Order, dated, 23-11-2006, the Honourable High
Court was pleased to club the said two Constitutional Petitions as common
questions of law were involved therein. On the Application of the Petitioners, the
Honourable Chief Justice of the High Court of Sindh was pleased to order the
transfer of both Constitutional Petition No.D-382 of 2006 and Constitutional Petition
No.D-439 of 2006 to the Principal Seat of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi as
important question concerning privatisation were involved. Thereafter, Constitutional
Petition No.D-382 of 2006 was numbered as Constitutional Petition No.441 of 2007,
and Constitutional Petition No.D-439 of 2006 was numbered as Constitutional
Petition No.442 of 2007 and ordered to be heard together. Order, dated, 28-05-
2007, in Constitutional Petition No.441 of 2007 is reproduced herein below:

“C.P Nos.441/07 and 442/07 are connected with other petitions in

which the question of privatization is involved, as evident from order,
dated, 9.5.07. These matters are to be clubbed and fixed together”.

The same order was passed in Constitutional Petition No.442 of 2007. After the
above mentioned Constitutional Petitions were clubbed, the orders passed therein
applied to both. Constitutional Petition No.441 of 2007, and Constitutional Petition
No.442 of 2007 were fixed for hearing before the Division Bench of the High Court
of Sindh at Karachi comprising the Honourable Mr. Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany
and the Honourable Mr. Justice Ali Sain Dino Methlo. Arguments of the counsel for
the parties were heard in the first petition i.e 441/2007 on 13-09-2007 and 14-09-
2007. For the reply of the counsel for the Petitioner in Constitutional Petition No.441
of 2007 the matter was adjourned. Only thereafter the parties counsel in the petition
442/2007 (i.e of the Present Petitioner) were to be heard. Earlier, by consent of all
the parties, it was decided that both the petitions would be heard fully and finally at
the limine stage and disposed of on merits. O n 05-12-2007, the above

mentioned Constitutional Petitions came up for hearing before a

completely new Division Bench comprising the Honourable Mr. Justice
Muneeb Ahmad Khan and the Honourable Mr. Justice Dr. Rana M.
Shamim. It is most pertinent to mention that Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada,
the counsel for the Petitioners in Constitutional Petition No.441 of 2007
who had to exercise his right of reply had been granted general
adjournment and therefore could not tender appearance on this date.
Even though Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Shaikh, who was holding brief for
Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, informed the Honourable High Court that Mr.
Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada had been granted general adjournment, the
Honourable High Court nonetheless ordered that the project be handed
over to Respondent No.6. This order was passed without hearing either
of the counsel for the Petitioners in the two petition Even the counsel for
Respondent No.6 Dr Pervez Hassan was absent . In view of the
general adjournment granted to Mr. Mujeeb Pirzada, the change in the
composition of the High Court, and the previous proceedings, where the
first petition had been virtually fully argued there could be no hearing on
5-12-2007. In any case the learned juges could not vary or recall the
previous injunctive order which had to continue till disposal of the
Petitions.after hearing the counsel for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and the
learned D.A.G. Aggrieved by the Order, dated, 05-12-2007 (hereinafter referred
to as the “Impugned Order”) passed by the Honourable Division Bench of the High
Court of Sindh at Karachi, the Petitioners humbly seek leave to appeal.
1. Which side has filed this Petition: Petitioner filed Constitution Petition No. D-439 of 2006
which was later on numbered as Const.P.442 of 2007.
 COURT DATES WHO FILED IT AND WITH WHAT RESULTS

Sindh High Court a). Filing of petition Petitioner filed Constitution Petition No. D439 of 2006,
Circuit Bench which was later-on numbered as Const.P. No. 442 of
Filed on 06-11-2007
Hyderabad 2007 in the Sindh High Court, Karachi.

b)23-11-2006 It was order by learned High Court that this petition be

clubbed with Const P.441 of 2007 as the same question
is involved.

Sindh High Court b)18-10-2006 Stay order was granted to the Petitioner in Const.P. No.
Circuit Branch 441 of 2007.
Hyderabad

Sindh High Court b)09-05-2007 Stay order modified in terms that privatisation process
Karachi of Lakhra Power Plant may continue but it will not be
handed over to the bidder.
Sindh High Court a) -2007 CMA filed
Karachi b)05-12-2007 The Learned High Court ordered that the Project be
handed over to Respondent No.6 at the risk and costs of
the Respondent.
POINTS NOTED IN THE TREATMENT OF THE POINTS IN THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND PAGES

That on 05-12-2007, the above

mentioned Constitutional Petitions The Learned high Court ordered that the
came up for hearing before the project be handed over to Respondent
Division Bench comprising the
Honourable Mr. Justice Muneeb No.6. This order was passed after hearing
Ahmad Khan and the Honourable the counsel for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5
Mr. Justice Dr. Rana M. Shamim.
It is most pertinent to mention that and the learned D.A.G.
Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, the
counsel for the Petitioners in
Constitutional Petition No.441 of
2007, had been granted general
adjournment and therefore could
not tender appearance on this
date. Even though Mr.
Muhammad Nawaz Shaikh, who
was holding brief for Mr. Abdul
Mujeeb Pirzada, informed the
Honourable High Court that Mr.
Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada had been
granted general adjournment, the
Honourable High Court

CASE LAW
For Against
PLD 1970 SC 1
PLD 1992 Kar 283
PLD 2006 SC 697
AIR 1985 SC 1147

Certified that this point noted Index/Concise statement has been drafted by me personally and is found correct.

Filed By

Advocate On Record