‘Monal restaurant case’: FCC explains reasons for setting aside SC’s verdict

ISLAMABAD: In its detailed judgment in the Monal Restaurant demolition case issued on Friday, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) explained the reasons for setting aside the Supreme Court judgment that had ordered the relocation of the Monal Restaurant from the Margalla Hills National Park (MHNP). The 44-page judgment, authored by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, observed that the Supreme Court appeared to have inadvertently overlooked the significance and legal effect of the expression “for recreation” contained in Section 21(2) of the Ordinance of 1979 and Regulation 4 (3) (b) of the Regulations of 1992. A three-judge SC bench, headed by former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, on September 10, 2024, on the review petitions of the Monal Restaurant, had ordered the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board to take over the possession of the restaurants (Monal Restaurant, La Montana, Gloria Jeans and Sunshine Heights (Pvt.) Limited), established at the Margalla Hills National Park. The SC judgment’s paragraph concluded that “the construction and running of restaurants impaired the object of the national park and the same also had no nexus with public education and/ or research. Therefore, the restaurants could not be allowed to operate. ” Justice Rizvi wrote that by this observation, “the Supreme Court effectively foreclosed the operation of any restaurant within the MHNP for all time, a consequence which, in our considered view, was never contemplated or intended by the statutory and regulatory framework governing the MHNP. ” A three-judge FCC bench, headed by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, on July 13, 2026, accepted the review petitions of the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and the Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad (MCI), and ordered the trial courts to decide the ownership dispute at the earliest. The FCC noted that a provision analogous to Section 21 of the Ordinance of 1979 was subsequently reenacted by the legislature in the form of Section 12 of the Islamabad Nature Conservation and Wildlife Management Act, 2024. It said that, consequently, the (SC) conclusion is inconsistent with the plain language, legislative intent, and harmonious construction of Section 21 of the Ordinance of 1979 read together with Regulation 4 (3) (b) of the Regulations of 1992. Such an interpretation effectively renders subsection (3) of Section 21 nugatory and deprives the statutory expression ‘recreation’ of its ordinary, natural, and purposive meaning. The correct inquiry was not whether restaurants could exist within the National Park per se, but whether the particular structures or activities, on the facts and evidence of the case, impaired the object for which the National Park had been established. That question required determination based on the evidence on record rather than by adopting an absolute rule of prohibition unsupported by the statutory framework. Accordingly, the conclusion recorded by the Supreme Court in para 15 of the judgment under review is set aside. The judgment said that the Intra-Court Appeals (ICAs) filed by the aggrieved persons against the judgment of the Islamabad High Court, which are presently pending before this Court (FCC), shall be decided independently, to the extent of the relief sought in the writ petitions, strictly in accordance with law and on their own merits, while keeping in view the observations made by it. The judgment further said that since the Civil Revision and the F. A. O. arose out of interlocutory orders passed by the Civil Court, the judgment of the IHC, to the extent that it dismisses those proceedings, calls for no interference. However, the plaintiffs may institute any such fresh application at an appropriate stage before the Civil Court. Copyright Business Recorder, 2026

Read full story on Business Recorder