Key Takeaways
- The Federal Constitutional Court has overturned the decision to demolish Monal Restaurant.
- Trial courts are now directed to resolve ownership disputes independently.
- Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi emphasized that the court will confine its judgment strictly to the issues argued.
In a significant ruling, the Federal Constitutional Court has declared that the demolition of Monal Restaurant at Pir Sohawa was illegal. The court's decision comes after appeals were filed by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and the Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad (MCI).
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, during the hearing, highlighted several shortcomings in the previous Supreme Court judgment, which had ordered the demolition of the restaurant. He expressed concern over both the original case filing and subsequent review petitions, emphasizing that the court would not issue an emotional decision but would confine itself strictly to the issues argued before it.
The Constitutional Court instructed trial courts to independently decide ownership disputes without being influenced by earlier judicial observations. Justice Rizvi further clarified that matters related to administration and regulation should be determined by relevant regulatory authorities, ensuring a more focused and efficient legal process.
In response to praise from counsel Ahsan Bhoon, Justice Rizvi advised lawyers not to commend the court during proceedings. He reiterated his commitment to deciding only on the issues argued before the bench, stating that the judgment would not include unnecessary narratives or matters outside the judicial record.
The court also vacated a previously issued stay order, allowing for the swift resolution of pending cases. Justice Rizvi’s remarks underscored the importance of adhering strictly to legal procedures and ensuring that judgments are based solely on the arguments presented in court.
This ruling marks a crucial step in resolving the long-standing dispute over Monal Restaurant's ownership and operation. It sets a precedent for how future similar cases should be handled, emphasizing the need for independent judicial decisions free from external influences.
The court would not issue an emotional decision and would confine itself strictly to the issues argued before it.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Federal Constitutional Court
