FCC sets aside Monal restaurant demolition order, restores case to trial courts

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has set aside the order directing the demolition of the Monal Restaurant at Pir Sohawa, allowing appeals filed by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and the Metropolitan Corporation to succeed.

On June 11 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) ordered the closure of Monal Restaurants and all other eateries in the Margalla Hills National Park in Islamabad.

The Supreme Court bench led by CJP Justice Qazi Faez Isa while rejecting the Capital Development Authority’s (CDA) report, ordered the administration to close all restaurants in Margalla Hills National Park within 90 days.

The court also vacated the stay order and ruled that the question of ownership should be decided by the relevant trial courts independently, without being influenced by any observations made in previous proceedings.

The Federal Constitutional Court directed the trial courts to dispose of the pending cases as expeditiously as possible, while clarifying that administrative matters should be determined by the relevant regulatory authorities.

During the hearing, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi observed that several important aspects had not been taken into account in the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment. He also remarked that the court had expressed concern over both the filing of the case and the subsequent review petition.

Read more: Monal restaurant case: FCC raises questions over Supreme Court verdict

Justice Rizvi further noted that the earlier judgment included matters that had not even been pleaded before the court, adding that the Constitutional Court would not deliver an emotional verdict. He said the bench had thoroughly examined the case and would base its decision strictly on the law.

Counsel Ahsan Bhoon told the court that the bench had examined the matter in depth. In response, Justice Rizvi remarked that counsel should refrain from praising the court, emphasising that the bench would decide the case solely on the basis of the proceedings.

He further observed that the judgment would remain focused on the legal issues and “would not read like a tale from Alif Laila.”