LAHORE, April 18: A full bench of the Lahore High Court on Friday dismissed a petition, challenging the existence of the Privatization Commission and privatization of three state-owned industrial concerns for want of locus standi on a ruling that only the federal or a provincial government was authorized to oppose such matters.
The National Fertilizer Corporation and two other concerns had moved the LHC against the privatization of their units. The bench ruled that under the 1973 Constitution, only the provinces or the federation had the right to voice against the matters like privatization. As none of the provinces had opposed privatization of these concerns, the petition was being dismissed for want of locus standi.
The petitioners argued that the government did not have any lawful authority to transfer their shares and management to the private sector without adopting the procedure laid down in Article 154 of the 1973 Constitution, under which a Council of Common Interest was to be formed. They said the Privatization Commission was not authorized to function in the impugned matter, and its existence was illegal.
No legal protection was available to the government for transferring the shares and management of the state-owned concerns to private sector after the lapse of a series of ordinances known as the Protection of Economic Reforms Ordinances, the petitioners said.
Attorney General Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that the petitioners did not have the locus standi, as none of the provinces had been made respondent in the petition. Such matter could not be decided without the indulgence of a provincial government, he added.
The AG raised the point that the government was authorized to sell away any of its unit even without following the procedure laid down in Article 154, which he claimed was not mandatory and binding on it.
According to the state, there was no dispute between the provinces and the federation regarding the privatization, and there was no question of the CCI’s constitution. The counsel claimed that the court did not have the jurisdiction to decide the constitutional petitions filed on question of law without hearing the provinces, and in this case the petitioners had failed to implead the provinces in their respective petitions.
The bench comprising Justice Chaudhry Ijaz Ahmad, Mian Saqib Nisar and Hamid Farooq upheld the AG’s arguments while relying on different judgments of the Supreme Court to establish that the 1973 Constitution had provided a specific mode for the resolution of disputes likes privatization, and such matters could not be addressed without the indulgence of the provinces, which were not made party to the petitions.