Summary: (a) Environmental law—National parks—Forest land—Public trust doctrine—Notification declaring “National Musk Deer Park, Guraiz” (24-09-2007)—Legal effect—Once forest land is notified as a national park, it cannot be subjected to allotment, private occupation, or regularization on so-called humanitarian or administrative “oral permissions”—Protection of ecological assets is a constitutional imperative; State holds such resources in trust for present and future generations—High Court’s direction to protect notification and evict illegal occupants affirmed. (b) Encroachment—Burden and proof—Commission report (05-10-2018) and Deputy Commissioner’s comprehensive report (post-leave order 06-05-2025) established unauthorized possession and constructions within park limits—No documentary sanction or regularization shown—Plea of displacement (1982–1991) and “oral resettlement” by functionaries rejected—Availability of proprietary land in Village Phulawi noted; claim of landlessness disproved—Presumption of correctness attaches to official record and surveys when unrebutted by credible evidence. (c) Judicial review—Environmental governance—Courts’ role—Where agencies fail to prevent encroachment/deforestation, constitutional courts may issue protective, restorative, and supervisory directions to secure public trust resources—High Court’s writ in public interest upheld as resting on sound factual appraisal and settled environmental principles. (d) Directions—Eviction and restoration—Forest Department and District Administration directed to remove all encroachments/constructions from National Musk Deer Park, Guraiz, and hand over recovered land to Wildlife & Fisheries Department—Operation to be completed within six months—Administrative cooperation mandated. (e) Systemic failures—Record-tampering and collusion—Court notes pervasive pattern across AJK of: (i) forest land being misrepresented as proprietary/Shamilat through manipulated revenue entries; (ii) procurement of decrees to mask usurpation; (iii) institutional inaction—Condemns collusion of elements within Forest/Revenue departments and public representatives—Calls for immediate structural reforms and accountability. (f) Policy/reform roadmap—Court urges Government to: constitute high-powered Forest Land Reclamation Task Force; conduct GIS/satellite mapping and create tamper-proof digital boundaries; audit two decades of revenue mutations and void fraudulent conversions ab initio; strengthen forest and land revenue statutes with deterrent penalties; retrieve and reforest encroached tracts under scientific plans; activate Environmental Courts/Green Benches; prosecute/discipline complicit officials; ensure transparency via public portals; institutionalize community stewardship; and consider a moratorium on civil suits involving forest land absent a certified forest-status report—Periodic oversight by Chief Secretary recommended. (g) Climate, biodiversity, and ecosystem services—Rationale and comparative guidance—Forests’ role in carbon sequestration, water/soil conservation, biodiversity, and disaster mitigation emphasized—Reliance placed, by way of guidance, on *Ilyas Jandalvi & others v. PDA & others* (2022 SCR 812) discussing deforestation risks; Lahore High Court’s environmental survey in *PLD 2019 Lahore 664*; and Pakistan Supreme Court’s suo motu on “New Murree Project” (2010 SCMR 361). Disposition: Appeal dismissed—High Court judgment dated 21-10-2024 maintained—Eviction/restoration directions affirmed with six-month completion timeline—Copy to Chief Secretary AJK for implementation and strict compliance.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 9, 14 & 184(3) Fundamental rights—Right to life and dignity—State’s obligation to provide clean water and sustainable environmental infrastructure—Delay in execution of Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) project. Land measuring 6,937 kanals was acquired in 1991-92 for the establishment of a Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) by the Water and Sanitation Authority (WASA) for preventing untreated wastewater from entering the River Ravi. However, despite the lapse of three decades, the project remained unexecuted due to financial constraints. The Supreme Court underscored that access to clean water and environmental protection are integral to the fundamental rights to life and dignity enshrined in Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution. The Court urged WASA to explore alternative financing mechanisms, including Islamic climate finance, and to consider cost-effective, homegrown wastewater treatment technologies to expedite the project in the public interest. The delay in establishing the WWTP, despite its direct implications for environmental sustainability and public health, necessitated urgent governmental action. (b) Land Acquisition—Public Purpose and Reversion of Acquired Land: ----Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, R.14 Land acquired for public purposes—Non-utilization for an extended period—Possibility of reversion to original owners. Petitioners challenged the prolonged inaction of WASA regarding the acquired land, arguing that the failure to execute the WWTP project over 30 years contravened the principles governing land acquisition for public purposes. The Court acknowledged that, under Rule 14 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, land acquired for a public purpose that remains unutilized could be considered for reversion to its original owners. The Court directed that if substantive progress was not reported by September 2025, the question of reversion of the acquired land would remain open for determination. (c) Environmental Law and Climate Resilience: ----Global Climate Risk Index, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Pakistan’s climate vulnerability—WWTP’s role in mitigating water pollution and climate risks—International commitments. Pakistan ranks 8th on the Global Climate Risk Index and 23rd on the 2024 Inform Risk Index, reflecting its susceptibility to climate-induced challenges. The Court emphasized that the WWTP project aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 14 (Life Below Water). Given the pressing environmental concerns associated with untreated wastewater contaminating the River Ravi, the Court highlighted the necessity of investing in climate-resilient wastewater treatment infrastructure. The delay in implementing the project not only affected environmental sustainability but also hindered Pakistan’s compliance with international climate commitments. (d) Judicial Oversight in Public Interest Litigation: ----Judicial intervention—Guidance without encroachment on policy-making. While policy-making remains within the domain of the executive, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its constitutional duty under Article 184(3) to safeguard fundamental rights. Without encroaching upon the executive’s prerogative, the Court provided recommendations for alternative financing, including Green Sukuk and Islamic finance models, and urged WASA to consider innovative wastewater treatment solutions. The Court directed the Planning and Development Working Party (PDWP), the Central Development Working Party (CDWP), and the Executive Committee of the National Economic Council (ECNEC) to finalize financial arrangements by August 2025 and submit a report. Failure to reach a resolution would necessitate further judicial intervention. ----Disposition: The Supreme Court directed WASA and relevant governmental authorities to finalize financing and implementation strategies for the WWTP project by August 2025, with a compliance report to be submitted to the Court before the next hearing in September 2025. The matter was adjourned for further review.

Summary: Background: The respondents, who were Range Forest Officers in the Forest and Wildlife Department, Government of Sindh, filed a constitutional petition challenging the recruitment process conducted by the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC) for the post of Assistant Conservator Forests (BPS-17). Originally, two positions were advertised for urban candidates, but the SPSC subsequently altered the quota, adding one rural position and increasing the posts to seven without re-advertising. Additionally, age relaxation was granted up to 15 years, benefiting several candidates. The respondents alleged favoritism, procedural lapses, and nepotism in the recruitment process. -----Issues: 1- Was the SPSC's alteration of the quota and increase in posts without re-advertising lawful? -----2- Was the extension of the application deadline and 15-year age relaxation justified and in accordance with the law? -----3- Did the recruitment process lack transparency, and was it marred by nepotism and favoritism? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, declaring the recruitment process null and void due to procedural irregularities and lack of transparency. The Court held that: Alterations to the quota, increase in the number of posts, and the extended application deadline required re-advertisement under the 2006 SPSC regulations. The failure to re-advertise violated the principles of fairness and transparency. The extensive age relaxation granted was deemed excessive, arbitrary, and financially burdensome on the government. The Court emphasized that discretionary powers must align with reasonableness and proportionality. The recruitment process was tainted by favoritism and a lack of transparency, with undue influence from high-ranking officials, undermining the principle of merit-based selection. The petitions were dismissed, and the Court ordered that the positions be re-advertised, allowing all eligible candidates to participate. Additionally, the notification granting age relaxation was struck down. -----Citations/Precedents: Munir Hussain vs. Province of Sindh (2022 SCMR 650) Musa Wazir vs. NWFP Public Service Commission (1993 SCMR 1124) Chief Secretary Punjab vs. Abdul Raoof Dasti (2006 SCMR 1876) Government of KPK vs. Bacha Alam Khan (2022 SCMR 718) Suo Motu Action Regarding Eligibility of Chairman and Members of Sindh Public Service Commission (2017 SCMR 637) Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Chairman Fourth Wage Board (1993 SCMR 1533) Federation of Pakistan vs. Shuja Sharif (2023 SCMR 129) Syed Azam Shah vs. Federation of Pakistan (2022 SCMR 201) Tariq Aziz-ud-Din and others (2011 PLC (C.S.) 1130) Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress (AIR 1991 SC 101) Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997 (7) SCC 622)

Summary: Background: The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed multiple petitions concerning construction and environmental preservation issues within the Margalla Hills National Park and adjacent protected areas. Following prior orders for the demolition of illegally constructed restaurants within the National Park, the Capital Development Authority (CDA) confirmed the demolition, with the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board (IWMB) managing site restoration. However, challenges arose regarding permissions for construction in protected forest areas, and allegations were made concerning unauthorized developments in Zone-III of Islamabad. -----Issues: 1- Was the issuance of demolition contracts by the IWMB compliant with public procurement laws? -----2- Did the Senior Civil Judge have authority to issue a stay on the demolition, given the Supreme Court’s directive? -----3- Can the Galiyat Development Authority (GDA) approve construction within protected guzara forests? -----4- Are there unauthorized developments by Northridge Housing Society within the National Park boundaries? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, emphasizing the preservation of the National Park as a protected area and clarifying that: ---IWMB’s Demolition Contract Compliance: The Wildlife Management Board followed due process by accepting the highest bid for demolition work, contradicting claims of non-compliance with procurement laws. ---Civil Judge’s Stay Order: The Court held that the Senior Civil Judge’s order obstructed Supreme Court directives. Under Article 189, Supreme Court decisions are binding on all courts, and Article 190 mandates support from all judicial and executive authorities. The Islamabad High Court was tasked with investigating the Senior Civil Judge’s conduct. ---GDA’s Construction Permissions: The GDA cannot authorize construction in guzara forests or National Park areas, as these lands are protected under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002. The Court directed GDA to withdraw any permissions granted for unfinished projects in these areas. Unauthorized Developments by Northridge Housing Society: CDA and the Chief Commissioner of Islamabad were instructed to investigate Northridge Housing Society's construction activities in Zone-III, to determine land ownership, construction legality, and necessary permissions. Further action was ordered based on compliance findings. -----Citations/Precedents: Constitution of Pakistan: Article 189: Binding nature of Supreme Court decisions on other courts. Article 190: Obligation of executive and judicial authorities to support Supreme Court rulings. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002: Section 44: Prohibition of construction and encroachment within guzara forests. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Galiyat Development Authority Act, 2016: Governs GDA’s authority, emphasizing conservation and wildlife preservation within the forested areas under its jurisdiction.

Summary: Background: The petitions addressed unauthorized constructions and environmental encroachments within the Margalla Hills National Park and surrounding areas, challenging the actions of local authorities, including the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and Galiyat Development Authority (GDA). Key points involved the demolition of illegal restaurants, unpermitted construction in the park’s guzara forest area, and alleged regulatory lapses by the authorities. Additionally, issues arose concerning unauthorized developments by the Northridge Housing Society in Zone-III of Islamabad, an area with strict construction prohibitions. -----Issues: 1- Were the actions by local authorities, such as CDA and GDA, in permitting and demolishing structures within protected areas lawful? -----2- Did the Senior Civil Judge’s order to halt demolitions and the subsequent appeal contradict the Supreme Court’s directives? -----3- Are regulatory authorities required to halt permissions for developments violating environmental and wildlife preservation laws? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court held that: --Demolition Compliance and Judicial Missteps: The court confirmed that the illegal restaurants had been demolished in compliance with its orders, with the CDA affirming the removal of debris. However, the Senior Civil Judge had issued a restraining order on demolition without due process, contradicting the Supreme Court's directives. The Supreme Court referred the judge's conduct to the Islamabad High Court for review under Article 203 to determine whether action was warranted. --CDA’s Responsibilities and National Park Preservation: The court mandated that the CDA and other relevant authorities ensure compliance with environmental laws, particularly the Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation, and Management) Ordinance, 1979, and the Islamabad Nature Conservation and Wildlife Management Act, 2023. The CDA and Chief Commissioner of Islamabad were directed to investigate unauthorized constructions by Northridge Housing Society in the restricted Zone-III area, ensuring adherence to regulatory requirements and halting illegal activities. --GDA’s Authority Misinterpretation: The GDA’s authorization of construction within guzara forest lands was deemed a misapplication of its regulatory powers, as such permissions contravened the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002, which prohibits construction within guzara forests and wastelands. The court instructed the GDA to withdraw any unexecuted permissions in these areas and halt further approvals, reiterating that forest conservation and wildlife preservation were integral to its functions. The Court dismissed the petitions, underscoring that all concerned authorities ensure strict compliance with environmental protection laws to maintain the National Park as a protected area. -----Citations/Precedents: Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan Article 190 of the Constitution of Pakistan Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979 Islamabad Nature Conservation and Wildlife Management Act, 2023 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 9 & 9A---Right to life---Right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a fundamental right---Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2024---Scope and significance---Deforestation and environmental degradation---Held, through the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2024, a new Art. 9A was inserted, recognizing every person’s right to a clean and healthy sustainable environment as a fundamental right---Prior to this amendment, superior courts had expansively interpreted Art. 9 (right to life) to include environmental protection, affirming that a life worth living requires a sustainable environment---Now, with Art. 9A’s explicit inclusion, Pakistan joins a select group of nations that enshrine environmental protection in their Constitution---The amendment strengthens legal obligations to preserve biodiversity, prevent pollution, and ensure sustainable ecological practices. Cited Case: • Province of Sindh v. Shahzad Hussain Talpur, 2022 SCMR 439 (b) Environmental Protection & State Responsibility ----Forests and climate change mitigation---Role of the Forest Department in preventing deforestation---Duty of the state to protect and preserve forests---Held, forests serve as natural rain catchment areas, prevent flooding and avalanches, and aid in sequestering greenhouse gases---Pakistan faces severe climate change risks, exacerbated by deforestation and industrial pollution---The Forest Department’s role is not to exploit but to protect forest reserves---State authorities must ensure that environmental degradation is curtailed through sustainable environmental practices and preservation efforts. (c) Public Accountability & Governance ----Submission of government reports in environmental cases---Transparency and responsibility of public officials---Held, the report submitted by the Division Forest Officer (DFO), Mardan, was undated, unsigned, and failed to provide province-wide data as required---Failure to disclose the name of the officer submitting the report contravenes settled legal principles and Supreme Court directives, as affirmed in Province of Sindh v. Shahzad Hussain Talpur (2022 SCMR 439)---Public officials must ensure complete and verifiable submissions in court proceedings, as environmental concerns bear long-term consequences for the country. (d) Deforestation & Illegal Logging ----Forest conservation---Impact of deforestation on environmental sustainability---Statistics on legal and illegal timber cutting---Held, over the past five years, 6,066,185 cubic feet of timber was legally cut, while 130,255 cubic feet was illegally cut and later confiscated---Pakistan’s declining forest cover exacerbates environmental risks, including landslides, flooding, and climate vulnerability---Deforestation policies inherited from colonial practices must be replaced with conservation-driven approaches ensuring sustainable resource management. (e) Environmental Responsibility in Islam ----Islamic principles on environmental protection---Rights of all living things---Held, Islamic teachings emphasize the preservation of nature, protecting trees, animals, and water resources---Environmental degradation and pollution violate ethical and religious responsibilities---Sustainable environmental practices align with both legal and religious imperatives, warranting immediate policy action. Disposition: Petition disposed of with directions to the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to implement best sustainable environmental practices and ensure effective forest preservation measures.

Summary: Background: The case concerns the alleged violation of an order by the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the removal of illegal restaurants within the Margalla Hills National Park. The petitioners raised concerns about the removal of the Chairperson of the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board and the illegal activities within the protected area, including the operation of a large restaurant by Mr. Luqman Ali Afzal. The petitioners sought enforcement of the Court's previous orders and actions against those responsible for environmental violations in the National Park. ----Issues: 1- Whether the removal of the Chairperson of the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board and the transfer of the Board’s administrative control were conducted lawfully. 2- Whether Mr. Luqman Ali Afzal violated the Supreme Court’s order by continuing operations of an illegal restaurant in the National Park and by engaging in a media campaign against the Court. 3- Whether the actions of various government officials, including the Cabinet Secretary, were conducted in the public interest or influenced by personal interests. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Unlawful Removal of Chairperson: The Court noted the unjust removal of the Chairperson of the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board, who was working voluntarily for the conservation of the National Park. This action appeared to be influenced by personal interests, particularly given the involvement of the Cabinet Secretary’s brother in illegal activities within the park. The Court ordered the withdrawal of the notification that removed the Chairperson. --Violation of Court Orders: The Court found that Mr. Luqman Ali Afzal violated the Court's previous order by failing to vacate the illegal restaurant within the National Park and instead launching a media campaign to mislead the public and discredit the Court. The Court issued a show-cause notice to Mr. Luqman Ali Afzal for contempt of court. --Government Actions: The Court questioned the integrity and public interest behind the actions of the Cabinet Secretary and other government officials involved in transferring the Wildlife Board’s control and the mishandling of environmental protections in the National Park. The Court directed a thorough investigation and ordered relevant authorities to ensure compliance with environmental laws. The Supreme Court of Pakistan issued a show-cause notice for contempt proceedings against Mr. Luqman Ali Afzal, reversed the removal of the Chairperson of the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board, and ordered strict compliance with environmental regulations in the Margalla Hills National Park. The Court also highlighted the need for government officials to act in the public interest and investigate any actions that may have been influenced by personal relationships. The matter was adjourned for further proceedings, with specific directions for compliance and reporting back to the Court. ----Citations/Precedents: Human Rights Case No. 318 of 1993, Order dated 19 May 2020.

Summary: Background: The case revolves around two criminal original petitions filed by environmentalists against the government’s decision to transfer the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board (IWMB) from the Ministry of Climate Change and Environmental Coordination to the Ministry of Interior. The petitioners contend that this transfer is a violation of a previous Supreme Court order dated 11 June 2024, and allege that it is intended to facilitate the further desecration and destruction of the protected Margalla Hills National Park. ----Issues: 1- Whether the transfer of the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board from the Ministry of Climate Change to the Ministry of Interior is in violation of the Supreme Court's order dated 11 June 2024. 2- Whether the transfer of the IWMB to the Ministry of Interior, which lacks expertise in environmental protection, constitutes a mala fide action. 3- Whether the involvement of the Secretary Cabinet Division, whose brother has a direct interest in the matter, amounts to nepotism and a conflict of interest. 4- Whether the issuance of banners promoting "Margalla Hills Tree Drive 2024" is a guise for allowing the Pine City project, which could harm the National Park. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court, recognizing the seriousness of the allegations, questioned the legality and appropriateness of the transfer of the IWMB. The Court highlighted that the Ministry of Interior has no expertise in environmental protection and that the National Park should remain under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Climate Change. The Court also expressed concern over the Secretary Cabinet Division’s role, considering his familial connection with an interested party. The Court pointed out that bypassing established procedures for such a significant transfer raises serious questions about potential nepotism and a hidden agenda that could harm public interest. The Attorney-General, representing the government, acknowledged the issues raised and requested time to reassess the situation. He undertook that the contested notifications and orders would not be implemented until further notice, and that the National Park would remain under the Ministry of Climate Change. The Court postponed further action on the contempt petitions, expecting the government to provide a detailed response by the next hearing. Additionally, the Court sought full disclosure from the Capital Development Authority regarding any projects, including Pine City, that could affect the National Park. ----Citations/Precedents: Order dated 11 June 2024 - Previous Supreme Court directive regarding the protection of the Margalla Hills National Park. The Court emphasized the importance of following established government procedures and avoiding conflicts of interest in decision-making processes.

Summary: The Public Interest Law Association of Pakistan and others filed petitions concerning the lack of effective climate change policies and actions by the Ministry of Climate Change and the provincial governments. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the systemic deficiencies in dealing with climate change and sought explanations from relevant authorities. -----Issues: 1. Whether the Ministry of Climate Change has an effective policy in place to address climate change 1. challenges. ---2. The adequacy of the actions taken by the Ministry of Climate Change and the provincial governments in dealing with climate change. ---3. Whether specific budgets have been allocated for climate change initiatives in the recent provincial budgets. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Completion of Authority Establishment: The Court noted that the Ministry of Climate Change received 752 applications for five posts under the Pakistan Climate Change Act, 2017. The Court directed the Ministry to complete this process within a fortnight and to place the notification of the duly constituted Authority on record before the next hearing. -----Lack of Climate Change Policy: The Court found no concrete climate change policy or effective steps taken by the Ministry of Climate Change. It directed the Secretary Climate Change to present a relevant policy and update the Court on the key challenges and strategies implemented. Provincial Inaction: The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Sindh, KPK, and Balochistan, noting the absence of clear strategies or adequate steps to address climate change challenges. The Chief Secretaries were ordered to submit relevant strategies/action plans before the next hearing. ----Budget Allocation: The Court observed that no special budget had been allocated for climate change in the recent provincial budgets, with the exception of a $50 million loan obtained by Punjab through the Asian Development Bank, which was noted but not documented in the record. -----Existential Threat: The Court emphasized that climate change poses a serious existential threat to the people of Pakistan and directly affects fundamental rights. It noted the urgency of the situation, especially with the monsoon season approaching, and the country's ongoing recovery from the 2022 floods. ----The Court scheduled the next hearing for 15.07.2024, requiring the presence of the Chief Secretaries, Ms. Roomina Khursheed Alam, the Secretary Climate Change, and other concerned officers to update the Court on their strategies and actions. Ms. Ayesha Khan was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court. The order was also to be dispatched to the Prime Minister Secretariat for the Prime Minister's perusal. ----Citations/Precedents: Pakistan Climate Change Act, 2017 ----Notable Citations: C.P.42/2022 and C.P.25/2024: Cases involving Public Interest Law Association of Pakistan and others vs. Federation of Pakistan, etc. Order Date: 01.07.2024: Directions to Ministry of Climate Change and provincial governments regarding climate change policies and actions.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973—Arts. 9 & 14—Right to Life and Dignity—Environmental Protection—Margalla Hills National Park—Violation of Environmental Laws—Commercial Activities—Sealing and Demolition of Illegal Constructions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to life (Art. 9) and right to dignity (Art. 14) enshrined in the Constitution inherently include the right to live in an environment free from pollution and degradation. Commercial operations, including restaurants constructed within the Margalla Hills National Park, were deemed illegal as they violated multiple environmental and zoning laws, including: Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation, and Management) Ordinance, 1979 Islamabad (Preservation of Landscape) Ordinance, 1966 Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997 Islamabad Capital Territory Zoning Regulations, 1992 The Court ordered the immediate sealing and demolition of Monal Restaurant, La Montana, and Gloria Jeans, declaring their leases with both the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and Remount, Veterinary and Farms Directorate (RV&FD) as void ab initio. The Islamabad Wildlife Management Board (IWMB) was tasked with restoring the area to its natural state. ----Cited Laws: Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9, 14, 19 Islamabad Wildlife Ordinance, 1979 Preservation of Landscape Ordinance, 1966 Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997 ICT Zoning Regulations, 1992 (b) Islamabad Wildlife Ordinance, 1979—S. 21—National Park—Purpose and Restrictions—Commercial Activities—Violation. The Margalla Hills National Park, declared under Section 21 of the Islamabad Wildlife Ordinance, 1979, is intended for public recreation, education, and research. The ordinance prohibits: Commercial construction Tree felling and vegetation destruction Water pollution Unauthorized land clearing The Supreme Court held that the construction and operations of Monal Restaurant and other establishments impaired the purpose of the National Park, violated the stated prohibitions, and contributed to environmental degradation. Cited Law: Islamabad Wildlife Ordinance, 1979, S. 21 (c) Lease Agreements—Capital Development Authority (CDA)—Remount, Veterinary, and Farms Directorate (RV&FD)—Validity and Jurisdiction—Doctrine of Ultra Vires. The lease agreement executed by Monal Restaurant with CDA had expired in 2021. Subsequently, an agreement was signed with the RV&FD Directorate, which had no legal authority or jurisdiction to lease land. The Supreme Court declared the RV&FD lease void ab initio, holding that the Directorate, being a non-legal entity, could not execute such agreements. The Court also noted the failure of CDA officials in upholding statutory laws, contributing to illegal commercial activities in the protected area. ----Cited Laws: Islamabad Wildlife Ordinance, 1979 Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 (d) Environmental Protection Act, 1997—Non-Compliance with EIA and IEA Requirements—Legal Consequences. Under Section 12 of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997 (PEPA), activities involving environmental changes require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or an Initial Environmental Examination (IEA). The restaurant operators failed to comply with these requirements, disregarding environmental protection orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Court observed gross violations of PEPA, including the discharge of untreated sewage, water pollution, and noise pollution, which had caused severe damage to the National Park’s ecosystem. Cited Law: Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, S. 12 (e) Islamabad High Court Judgment—Sustainability—Implementation of Directions—Accountability of Officials. The Supreme Court upheld the Islamabad High Court's directions, including: Sealing and demolition of illegal constructions within the National Park. Accountability of CDA officials and military personnel involved in unauthorized lease agreements. Restoration of encroached lands under the supervision of the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board (IWMB). The Court emphasized the responsibility of public servants to safeguard national assets and enforce environmental laws. It further directed strict compliance with environmental regulations and active participation by relevant statutory bodies. Disposition: All petitions and related CMAs dismissed. Illegal constructions ordered to be sealed, vacated, and demolished. The National Park to be restored under IWMB supervision. ----Key Precedents: Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation, and Management) Ordinance, 1979 Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997 Islamabad Capital Territory Zoning Regulations, 1992