Maps
Magazine

LEGAL

Supreme Court Hearing on Monal Restaurant Review Petitions Becomes Contentious
Tempers flare in Supreme Court as Chief Justice and Monal Restaurant’s lawyer Naeem Bukhari clash over the closure of commercial activities in Margalla National Park.
ND
by News Desk
2024-09-03
Supreme Court Hearing on Monal Restaurant Review Petitions Becomes Contentious

The Supreme Court hearing on the review petitions related to the termination of commercial activities at Margalla National Park turned contentious as Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa and lawyer Naeem Bukhari exchanged heated remarks.

 

The three-member bench, led by Chief Justice Isa, was reviewing petitions from Monal Restaurant and other parties challenging the court's earlier decision to close commercial operations within the National Park. The decision had been made with the consent of all parties, mandating the closure within three months.

 

Chief Justice Isa questioned the need for a review, pointing out that the decision was made with prior consent and asking why the petitions were necessary. Naeem Bukhari, representing Monal Restaurant, argued that the closure was not voluntary but compelled under duress. Bukhari claimed that his client, Dr. Muhammad Amjad, a 66% shareholder, had not been adequately heard because he was abroad at the time of the initial decision. He also noted that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had previously investigated the restaurant's owners and found no criminal activity.

 

The Chief Justice responded sharply, questioning the relevance of FIA’s investigations and criticizing Bukhari’s arguments. He emphasized that fundamental rights and the protection of animals within the National Park were at stake, and criticized the continued commercial activities despite the court's earlier ruling.

 

The exchange grew increasingly heated, with Bukhari referring to historical events and past injustices, which the Chief Justice dismissed as irrelevant. The Chief Justice stressed that the park's protection was a matter of law and fundamental rights, criticizing the continued operation of the restaurants in defiance of legal rulings.

 

Bukhari defended the legitimacy of the restaurant's license, which initially had a nominal fee but was later increased. The debate highlighted the tensions between enforcing environmental protections and addressing legal and historical grievances.

 

As the hearing concluded, the court's stance on upholding the closure order remained firm, underscoring the ongoing legal and environmental issues surrounding commercial activities in Margalla National Park.

 
Tagged:

SupremeCourt

LegalBattle

MonalRestaurant

MargallaNationalPark
Share News: