Stay on Margalla order baffles Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed its wonder at a civil judge's decision to stay its order with regard to illegal constructions at the capital's Margalla hills, noting that such an order is tantamount to contempt of court.

A three-member bench led by CJP Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Shahid Bilal and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan resumed hearing a case related to residential and commercial activities at the Margalla Hills National Park.

During the hearing, the CJ said it was remarkable that a civil judge was halting the implementation of Supreme Court orders. "Has the civil judge committed contempt of court by issuing a stay order? Action should be taken against such judges," he said.

Justice Shahid Bilal noted that Judge Inamullah issued a stay order on a claim, even though the court fee for the claim had not been submitted, and without the payment of the court fee, the claim was not admissible.

The CJ asked as to how did the civil judge know that the petitioner, Ajab Gul, is a Class-A contractor. "The judge should have first examined whether the claim was eligible for relief. It appears the stay order was issued to counteract the court's orders," he said.

A restaurant's lawyer stated that they have handed over possession of the concerned location and vacated the premises. The claim based on which the stay order against the demolition of the restaurant building was issued was withdrawn on October 2.

The chief justice remarked that, under the Constitution, both the executive and the judiciary are bound to comply with the orders of the Supreme Court.

The bench referred the matter of the judge to the Islamabad High Court (IHC), instructing it to review the case and determine whether any action needs to be taken in this regard. The bench also withdrew a contempt of court notice issued against a restaurant owner Luqman Ali Afzal.

Referring to a social media campaign lodged against the apex court, the CJ questioned if social media is meant for insulting institutions and judges.

"Is the reclaimed land in Margalla Hills the personal property of judges? It was said that employees lost their jobs after the restaurant was vacated—so should we hand over the forest to those who cut trees? That would surely boost their business," he said. He further questioned whether the issue of commercial activities in Margalla Hills was ever raised in the media or parliament.

The court issued notices to the CDA and the Islamabad chief commissioner regarding the North Range Housing Society and sought the ownership documents and building approval details of the project. The hearing was adjourned for a week.