Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199(1)(a)(ii), Arts. 7 & 78; Fourth Schedule, Part-II, Entry 6; Fourth Schedule, Part-I, Entry 30 Maintainability—Stock exchange as “person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation”—Held, Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) is a voluntary corporate entity and not a statutory creation; the 2012 Act corporatizes/demutualizes/integrates existing exchanges but does not establish PSX as a State instrumentality; mere regulatory oversight by SECP does not convert PSX’s commercial activities into sovereign/public functions; PSX does not utilize or receive public funds and any charges/penalties accrue as its income and are not credited to the Federal Consolidated Fund under Art. 78—Consequently, PSX is not amenable to writ under Art. 199(1)(a)(ii). Cited Cases: • Pakistan Stock Exchange Ltd. v. Province of Sindh, 2024 CLD 580 • Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1997 SC 84 (b) Securities laws—nature of “regulations” and penalties ----Stock Exchanges (Corporatization, Demutualization and Integration) Act, 2012; Securities Act, 2015, Ss. 2(x), 2(xlvi), 2(xlix), 2(lv), 5, 7, 11, 160 & 161 Statutory “regulations” under the 2015 Act are those made by SECP; PSX’s “regulations” are internal instruments governing its marketplace and do not confer statutory power to impose penalties; no appeal lies under S. 161 against PSX-imposed measures; such amounts are not statutory exactions but form part of PSX’s income distributed per corporate law—PSX therefore not performing sovereign/regulatory functions of the State. Cited Cases: • Pakistan Stock Exchange Ltd. v. Province of Sindh, 2024 CLD 580 (c) Judicial review—scope of “person” and “functions” ----Art. 199(1)(a)(ii) read with Art. 199(5) Even where a respondent qualifies as a “person,” judicial review lies only if the impugned act was performed in connection with the “affairs” of the Federation/Province/local authority; PSX’s privately funded, profit-maximizing operations and internal disciplinary regime do not satisfy that test. Cited Cases: • Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1997 SC 84 • Pakistan Stock Exchange Ltd. v. Province of Sindh, 2024 CLD 580 (d) Necessary party—SECP ----Art. 199(1)(a)(ii) SECP impleaded without any “act done,” “proceeding taken,” or order passed against the petitioner in the arbitral matter—No cause of action or maintainable prayer made out—SECP neither a necessary nor a proper party. (e) Arbitration—alternative remedy and Kompetenz-Kompetenz ----PSX Rule Book (Chapter 18: Investors’ Claims, Securities Brokers’ Disputes and Arbitration Regulations) Ongoing institutional arbitration provides an adequate and efficacious remedy; objections on limitation and tribunal jurisdiction fall within the arbitral tribunal’s Kompetenz-Kompetenz and must be decided in that forum; constitutional writ not ordinarily invocable to interdict pending arbitration absent exceptional grounds, none shown. (f) Constitutional benches—post-26th Amendment framework ----Arts. 175, 175-A, 199(1)(a)(ii) & 202-A; Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2024 Court records that reasons are rendered by the Constitutional High Court for the short order dated 13.11.2024; applying the “dominant relief” test, Art. 199(1)(a)(ii) governed the petitioner’s prayer for declarations (“without lawful authority,” “of no legal effect”), thus falling within the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction to issue reasons for the earlier short order. (g) Disposition --- Constitutional petition not maintainable; writ does not lie against PSX; no grounds made out against SECP; parties relegated to the agreed arbitral mechanism under PSX Regulations; petition dismissed vide short order dated 13.11.2024—present judgment contains reasons.