ملڪ مان نڪرندڙ قدرتي وسيلن جھڙوڪ تيل ۽گيس بابت سپريم ڪورٽ جو فيصلو

P L D 2014 Supreme Court 350
Present: Jawwad S. Khawaja, Khilji Arif Hussain and Gulzar Ahmed, JJ
APPLICATION BY ABDUL HAKEEM KHOSO, ADVOCATE---In the matter of Constitutional Petitions Nos. 46, 278-Q and Human Rights Case No.36052-S of 2013, decided on 27th December, 2013.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art. 172(2) & (3)---Natural resources, ownership of---Mineral oil and natural gas---People of Pakistan were the ultimate owners of natural resources including mineral oil and natural gas through their Governments and State controlled entities.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 184(3)---Constitutional petition under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution regarding contractual and legal obligations of oil Exploration and Production (E&P) companies operating in Pakistan towards the environment and welfare and uplift of areas of their operation---Enforcement of fundamental rights of citizens---Suo motu notice by the Supreme Court under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution, significance of---Chief Justice of Pakistan took note of a speech delivered by an office bearer of a District Bar Association wherein certain violations of law and the terms and conditions of [petroleum concession] agreements by oil Exploration and Production (E&P) companies operating in the concerned district were highlighted---Copy of the speech was marked by the Chief Justice to the Human Rights Cell (HRC) of the Supreme Court---Report/comments received from concerned personnel and functionaries were found unsatisfactory and it was, therefore, directed that the matter be put up in the Supreme Court as a petition under Art.184(3) of the Constitution---Supreme Court observed that significance of Art.184(3) of the Constitution in enforcing the fundamental rights of the people all over the country without the necessity of having a petitioner from each district was evident from the present case; that in the ordinary course it would have been extremely difficult logistically and financially for a resident of concerned district to file and pursue legal recourse in the civil courts or in the constitutional courts, and even if such recourse had been taken it would have remained confined to issues relating to the concerned district; that it was only on account of Art. 184(3) of the Constitution and the willingness and ability of the (Supreme) Court to take notice suo motu that the entire country spread over more than 105 Districts had been brought within the compass of one initiative taken by the concerned District Bar Association and then proactively dealt with by the Human Rights Cell of the (Supreme) Court and then in court hearings; that it should be obvious from the facts of the present case that conventional methods of seeking legal redress could be grossly inadequate for people without sufficient means, particularly when they might be pitted against more resourceful individuals and corporate entities; that present case summedup the rationale behind Art.184(3) of the Constitution, and the wisdom and foresight of the framers who sought an egalitarian polity by equalising the ordinary citizen with those of greater resources and means, in matters of "public importance with reference to the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights" guaranteed by the Constitution.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Arts. 9, 14 & 184(3)---Constitutional petition under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution regarding contractual and legal obligations of oil Exploration and Production (E&P) companies operating in Pakistan towards the environment and welfare and uplift of areas of their operation---Maintainability---Plea of applicants that oil exploring companies were acting in violation of law and the terms and conditions of the [petroleum concession] agreements which they executed with the Government whereby they were bound to control environmental pollution, provide jobs and gas facility to the local people and spend specified amount[s] on the local infrastructure such as roads, schools, hospitals and the betterment of local people---Such plea of applicants was not without substance and Federal, Provincial and Local Governments had failed to ensure performance of the obligations of Exploration and Production (E&P) companies, which were actively exploring nearly one-third of the land area of the country---Vast numbers of people were affected by the issues arising in the present case, therefore it raised matters of public importance relating directly to their fundamental rights; especially those guaranteed in Arts.9 & 14 of the Constitution---Constitutional petition was held to be maintainable accordingly.