LHC grills PFA over 14-year delay in enforcing law
The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Tuesday expressed serious concern over the Punjab Food Authority's (PFA) failure to implement a key provision of its own governing law — the Punjab Food Authority Act 2011 — even 14 years after its enactment.
During a hearing on a bail petition in a food-related FIR, Justice Ali Zia Bajwa questioned why the PFA had not constituted the mandatory investigation teams composed of food safety officers, as required under the law.
"It has been 14 years since this law was enacted, and yet it has not been implemented. That is astonishing," remarked Justice Bajwa. He directly asked the Director General of the PFA why the provision had never been operationalized.
The DG PFA failed to offer a satisfactory explanation, telling the court that although the law was drafted in accordance with European standards, it could not be implemented due to practical limitations.
The department's law officer added that a shortage of food safety officers had prevented the formation of investigation teams. "If we constitute these teams, it would affect other critical operations of the department," he argued.
Unimpressed with the justification, Justice Bajwa observed, "You are practically lifting your hands in helplessness. You admit you lack the capacity to implement the very law you are bound to enforce."
Justice Bajwa further questioned the rationale behind passing such a law if its implementation was never feasible. "We will seek a response from the Chief Minister Punjab regarding this situation. Why was this act enacted if it could not be enforced in over a decade?"
The court adjourned proceedings while seeking a comprehensive explanation from the provincial government.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
27 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
Timeline has to be set by court when constitutional timeline is not met: PTI counsel
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf(PTI)'s counsel told the Constitutional Bench that the majority judgment in reserved seats has not violated the Constitution by extending time for 41 independents to join the PTI. Salman Akram Raja, representing the PTI, said that eight judges of the Supreme Court have dealt with the coercive measure adopted by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) the PTI candidates had opted to contest elections as independent. An 11-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the ECP. The proceeding was live-streamed on SC's You Tube channel. Raja argued that the timeline has to be set by the Court when constitutional timeline is not met. The eight judges considering all the facts and the precedents gave relief to the PTI. Justice Amin inquired when the Court hearing an appeal filed against the Peshawar High Court (PHC) under Article 185 of the Constitution then can use Article 187. Raja, citing cases of NRO and extension to the Chief of Army Staff, argued that deviation had taken place in the past as well, but the Supreme Court cured them. He said judgment of Justice Mandokhail and Justice Qazi Faez also recognised the deviation and cured it by declaring that 39 independents are PTI candidates and entitled to reserved seats. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said to extent of 39 independents they had done that on the basis of undisputed facts. Raja contended that the majority judgment had also looked at all the facts and the precedents and came up with two different sets of relief, adding the factual finding cannot be undone. Justice Amin said till date, none of the 80 independents has disputed that he or she has not joined the SIC independently. Justice Mandokhail noted that the elections process starts by filing nomination papers, adding the candidates who have mentioned in their nomination papers independent then why not they accept those nomination papers? At the onset of the proceedings, Raja explained why the PTI candidates contested general elections 2024 as independents. He submitted that after the Supreme Court's judgment on the PTI's intra-party elections, the ECP disallowed party symbol to them, and also derecognised the PTI, adding the ECP in its 9th February order declared all the PTI candidates as independents, including those who had contested on PTI tickets and won the elections. He told that there was great confusion at time as they were told that all the PTI candidates would be treated as independents, 'therefore our returned candidates had joined the SIC, as we had the precedent of Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) before us that a party which had not contested elections and won any seats, but was distributed reserved seats.' 'We had the understanding that ultimately the will of the people would prevail.' Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail stated that the BAP had contested the election and secured seats, adding it had some members in the Balochistan provincial assembly and five in the Senate, if not in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Raja replied that they had assumption that the BAP party had no seats in the National Assembly and the provincial assemblies. Justice Mandokhail said despite various difficulties some of the PTI members contested on the PTI tickets and became MNAs. He questioned when PTI was in the National Assembly then why 80 independent returned candidates joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC). He asked whether those six MNAs had claimed reserved seats on their strength? Raja replied that till 11th February 2024, the ECP treated them (the six MNAs) also as independents. 'If six lawmakers had been recognised as PTI then the independent candidates could have joined the PTI instead of the SIC.' Justice Mandokhail then asked Raja that you filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court (LHC),praying that you should be declared as PTI candidate instead of independent. Raja informed that his petition was disposed of by a divisional bench of LHC, which included Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, without any order and the matter was remanded to the ECP. 'I came to the Supreme Court against that order I have challenged the vires of Explanation of Rule 94 of The Election Rules, but the SC office returned my petition on 2nd February, 2024 by raising objections.' Justice Mandokhail then asked him whether you or any of the PTI leaders till date has challenged that order? Raja responded: 'We came to the Supreme Court not once, but twice, but our application was returned by the Registrar's Office, and we were told that the Supreme Court will not entertain any election related application.' Upon that, Justice Mandokhail questioned why not any of the PTI leaders filed any chamber appeal. The case was adjourned until today (Thursday). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Supreme Court looks at seniority under Article 200
The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned until Thursday (today) the hearing of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge transfer case. A five-member constitutional bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, presided over the hearing. During proceedings, the Advocate General for Punjab advanced his arguments, stating that West Pakistan was made a single unit in 1955 through the Pakistan Governor General Order. As a result, all high court-level courts were consolidated into one, and a seniority list was compiled based on the judges' appointment dates. However, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked that the situation in the present case was different, as no judicial formation or dissolution had taken place in connection with the transfer of judges to the IHC. In response, the advocate general clarified that his point was only to illustrate that judges' prior service and transfers had historically been accepted. Justice Afghan observed that the central question in the case is whether the judge's transfer is to be considered permanent or temporary under Article 200 of the Constitution. He further inquired why a judge ranked 15th on the seniority list was transferred while 14 judges senior to him were overlooked.
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
CB questions PTI's role in seats case
An 11-member constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Wednesday raised questions about the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) becoming a party to the reserved seats review case. Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan told Salman Akram Raja, the lawyer for PTI leader Kanwal Shauzab, that he had joined the proceedings of the main case in the apex court as an intervener, because the PTI was neither the party to the case nor a respondent. Earlier, in his arguments, Raja presented history of the case before the court. On that Justice Khan said that the bench had a decision before it that needed to be reviewed. He asked Raja to keep his arguments to that decision. Raja said the deviation from the Constitution started on December 22, 2023, when the Election Commission of Pakistan gave its decision against the intra-party elections of the PTI. On January 13, the Supreme Court upheld the ECP decision, he said. After that decision, he continued, did some people submit nomination papers in the general elections as independent candidates, because they feared that their papers could be rejected. He cited his own example that he submitted the PTI ticket but the ECP returned it and declared him as an independent. He also cited the example of the allotment of reserved seats to the Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) after 2018 elections. On that Justice Khan raised the question if the BAP got the seats, so the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) should also get the seats. Raja replied that he was only defending the apex court's decision of July 12, 2024, adding that his point was to inform the court about the circumstances that led the PTI-backed Independent lawmakers to join the SIC. Justice Mandokhail remarked that there were six people from the PTI in parliament. Justice Khan asked Raja whether those six people sought the reserved seats from the ECP. Raja replied that the ECP did not consider them as PTI's lawmakers. Raja said that there was a slight difference between the majority decision of eight judges and the dissenting notes of two judges. He added that Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi were among the eight judges who looked at the facts from a broader perspective, while Justice Mandokhel and former chief justice Qazi Faez Isa looked at the facts from a less broad perspective. Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan told Raja that he was not a party to the main case, rather joined the court proceedings as an intervener — who was neither a party nor a judicial officer. The judge added that Raja's application for becoming a party to the case was never approved. It seemed, Justice Hassan said, the court was listening to Raja out of courtesy. The judge asked Raja whether he was presenting arguments on the merits of the case. Raja replied that he would answer these questions. The hearing was adjourned until Thursday. In an earlier hearing held on May 27, Senior Counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan had informed the Constitutional Bench (CB) of the Supreme Court that Article 187 of the Constitution — the basis for the July 12, 2024 majority judgement which granted relief to the PTI in the reserved seats case — does not empower the apex court to grant relief to a party that was not before it.
