PESHAWAR: Rejecting the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government’s review petition, the Peshawar High Court has upheld its earlier judgement declaring the posting of civil servants as the chief executive officers to water and sanitation services companies in the province illegal.
A bench consisting of Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Babar Sattar declared that a perusal of the grounds set forth in the review petition further revealed that the petitioners had, in substance, merely reasserted the same grounds, objections and defence on merits, which were available to them and had already been urged during the original proceedings.
It added that no new and important matter or evidence had been brought on record, which, despite the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioners or could not be produced before the court at the time of the original hearing.
“Similarly, no patent illegality, clerical or arithmetical error, jurisdictional defect or mistake or error apparent on the face of the record in the judgement dated 12.05.2026 has been identified or pointed out,” it noted.
Upholds ruling against civil servants heading water and sanitation companies
On May 12, 2026, the bench partially accepted a petition, declaring illegal the notifications issued on Sept 11, 2024, regarding the appointment of civil servants as CEOs of six WSSCs in the province, ruling that the appointments were not only contrary to law but also to the scheme of corporate governance discussed in detail by the court.
The petition was filed by engineer Mohammad Naeem Khan against those appointments.
The six WSSCs operate in Peshawar, Bannu, Kohat, Dera Ismail Khan, Mardan and Swat.
Senior lawyer Shumail Ahmad Butt, who represented the petitioner, had insisted that the appointment of civil servants, on transfer, as the WSSC CEOs was illegal.
The bench had directed the boards of directors of those WSSCs to complete the process of appointing new CEOs within three months.
“As a stopgap arrangement, the chairman of the board of directors of each WSSC shall perform the function of CEO solely for the purpose of convening a meeting of the respective boards, framing the eligibility criteria and qualifications for the position of CEO, advertising the post of CEO, and completing the process of appointment or recommendation for appointment strictly in accordance with law,” the bench had declared.
Additional advocate general Rahmat Ali appeared for the provincial government during the hearing into the review petition and requested the bench to review its judgement.
The court, in its four-page order, declared: “The jurisdiction of review is limited and can be exercised only on the grounds specifically recognized by law, namely, where there is a discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or where there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.”
It added that a party seeking review couldn’t seek reconsideration of the case merely because it was dissatisfied with the conclusions reached by the court or sought to reargue the matter on grounds which had already been considered and determined.
The bench pointed out that in the case, the foundational contention raised by the AAG was that Section 187(4) of the Companies Act, 2017, empowered the provincial cabinet to directly appoint civil servants, including PAS and PMS officers, as the WSSC CEOs, but that argument was specifically raised, considered, deliberated upon and answered in detail in the main judgement issued on May 12, 2026.
“The petitioners have not been able to identify any material aspect of this contention which was inadvertently overlooked or left undecided by the court. The mere repetition of an argument already advanced and considered during the original writ proceedings cannot, by itself, constitute a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record so as to attract the review jurisdiction of this court,” it noted.
The bench declared that the review jurisdiction couldn’t be invoked merely to obtain a second opportunity to argue the case on merits.
It added that a review petition was not intended to provide a forum for correcting every alleged error of judgement or for substituting one possible view for another.
“Where the court has considered the relevant contentions and recorded its conclusions after examining the material placed before it, a party cannot invoke review jurisdiction merely because it seeks a different interpretation of the same facts or legal provisions. To permit such an exercise would, in substance, convert the limited jurisdiction of review into an appellate jurisdiction, which is impermissible in law,” it declared.
Published in Dawn, October 11th, 2026
