Pakistan’s Supreme Court has issued a decisive directive in a long-running sugar sector dispute. The court ordered the relevant tribunal to decide the 72 sugar mills fine case within 90 days. This move aims to end legal uncertainty that has stalled enforcement for years. Therefore, the ruling carries significant implications for competition regulation and corporate accountability.
Supreme Court’s Clear Direction
A three-member Supreme Court bench heard the appeal against penalties imposed on sugar mills. Chief Justice Yahya Afridi led the bench during the proceedings. After initial hearings, the court directed the tribunal to conclude the case within a strict timeline. Meanwhile, the court issued notices to all concerned parties. Further hearings were adjourned until next week.
Arguments Presented Before the Court
Counsel representing the Competition Commission requested clarification in the court’s order. She sought language allowing the commission to hear the matter. However, the Chief Justice noted that the court would grant relief only if legally justified. Justice Shakeel Ahmed emphasized the need to hear every party before a final ruling. As a result, procedural fairness remained central to the court’s approach.
Background of the Sugar Mills Case
Earlier, four members of the Competition Commission examined the sugar mills petition. Two members supported imposing fines on the mills. However, the remaining two members rejected the show-cause notices. They ordered a fresh inquiry instead. This split decision triggered a legal complication. Consequently, the commission chairman used a casting vote under competition law provisions.
Tribunal and Supreme Court Intervention
The sugar mills challenged this outcome before the relevant tribunal. The tribunal ordered a rehearing and set a 90-day decision timeline. Later, the matter reached the Supreme Court through an appeal. The apex court examined whether the chairman’s casting vote was lawful. It concluded that the action amounted to a double vote. Therefore, the court ruled such authority applies only to administrative matters.
Legal Significance of the Ruling
The Supreme Court clarified limits on quasi-judicial powers within regulatory bodies. It reinforced the separation between administrative and judicial decision-making. Moreover, it reaffirmed the tribunal’s responsibility to decide the case promptly. This decision may influence future competition law disputes. It also signals stricter oversight of regulatory procedures.
Conclusion
The 90-day deadline reflects the Supreme Court’s push for faster justice. It also restores focus on due process within competition enforcement. Now, attention shifts to the tribunal’s final verdict. That decision could shape the future of Pakistan’s sugar industry regulation.
