IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(REVIEW JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR 
MR. JUSTICE IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA 
 
 
 
CIVIL REVIEW PETITIONS NO.561, 568 TO 570, 600 TO 604 AND 607/2015 
(On review of this Court’s judgment dated 19.8.2015 passed in Const.P.38/2015, CPLA No.250/2015, CMA 
No.1435/2015 in CPLA No.Nil/2015, CPLA No.145/2015, C.P.No.38/2015, C.P.No.20/2015, C.P.No.21/2015, 
Const.P.38/2015 and C.P.No.253/2015) 
AND 
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.8635/2015 
(Application for impleadment) 
AND 
C.M.APPEAL NO.125/2015 IN CRP NO.NIL/2015 
(Misc. Appeal against the order of Registrar) 
 
 
 
Govt. of Punjab, etc 
… 
(in CRP-561/15) 
Federation of Pakistan 
… 
(in CRP-568 to 570/15) 
Province of Sindh, etc 
… 
(in CRP-600/15) 
Govt. of Balochistan, etc 
… 
(in CRP-601 to 603/15) 
Mir Abdul Karim Nausherwani 
… 
(in CRP-604/15) 
Atta-ur-Rehman 
… 
(in CRP-607/15) 
Govt. of Punjab, etc 
… 
(in CMA-8635/15) 
Atta-ur-Rehman  
… 
(in C.M.Appeal-125/15) 
 
 
…Petitioners 
VERSUS 
Aamir Zahoor-ul-Haq, etc 
… 
(in CRP-561, 568, 601 & 604/15) 
Muhammad Aslam Bootani, etc 
… 
(in CRP-569, 602 & 607/15) 
Malik Muhammad Saleem 
… 
(in CRP-570 & 603/15) 
Lal Khan Chandio, etc 
… 
(in CRP-600/15) 
Aamir Zahoor-ul-Haq, etc 
… 
(in C.M.A-8635/15) 
Aamir Zahoor-ul-Haq, etc 
… 
(in C.M.Appeal-125/15) 
 
 
…Respondents 
 
For the petitioners: 
 
Mr. Salman Aslam Butt, A.G.P. 
Ch. Aamir Rahim, Addl. Attorney General 
Mr. Nayab Hassan Gardezi, ASC 
C.R.Ps.No.561, 568 to 570, 600 to 604 and 607/2015 etc. 
-: 2 :-
 
 
Mr. M. Waqar Rana, Addl.A.G 
a/w Qari Abdul Rasheed, AOR 
(in CRP-568 to 570/15) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Razzaq A. Mirza, Addl.A.G. Punjab 
(in CRP-561/15) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Adnan Basharat, ASC 
(in CRP 607/15) 
 
Mr. Ayaz Khan Swati, Addl.A.G Balochistan 
(in CRP-601 to 603/15) 
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Iftikhar Hussain  Gillani, Sr.ASC 
(in CRP-604/15) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Farooq H. Naek, Sr.ASC 
(in CRP-600/15) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Adnan Basharat, ASC 
(in C. Misc. Appeal 125/15)  
 
 
 
 
For the applicant: 
  
 
Mr. Ajmal Raza Bhatti, ASC  
(in CMA No.55 of 2016) 
 
 
 
 
For the respondents: 
 
Syed Ali Zaffar, ASC 
(in CRP-561/15) 
 
 
 
 
 
Nemo 
(in CRP-569/15) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For M/o Foreign Affairs 
 
 
 
For respondents  
(in CRP 603/15) 
 
 
 
Mr. Riffat Butt, Dir. Legal, Advisor M/o F.A  
Mr. Naeem Cheema, DCP, M/o F.A 
 
 
Mr. Kamran Murtaza, ASC 
 
Dates of hearing: 
 
6th to 8th January, 2016 
… 
C.R.Ps.No.561, 568 to 570, 600 to 604 and 607/2015 etc. 
-: 3 :-
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.- Through the aforesaid petitions filed 
under Article 188 of the Constitution read with Order XXVI, Rule 1 of the 
Supreme Court Rules, 1980, review has been sought of the consolidated 
judgment dated 19-08-2015 passed by this Court in Civil Petitions Nos. 
250/2015 and CMA No. 1435/2015 in CP No. Nil/2015 filed by the Federation 
of Pakistan through M/O Foreign Affairs, Civil Petitions Nos. 253 and 574 of 
2015 filed by one Atta-ur-Rehman, Civil Petitions Nos. 20-Q and 21-Q of 2015 
filed by Government of Balochistan, etc. challenging the validity of the 
common judgment dated 27-11-2014 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, 
Quetta in C.P. No. 17 & 347 of 2011; Civil Petition No. 145/2015 filed by 
Province of Sind, etc. against the judgment dated 02-01-2015 passed by the 
High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Const. Petition No. D-5806/2014; and 
Constitution Petition No. 38/2015 filed by one Aamir Zahoor-ul-Haq under 
Article 184 (3) of the Constitution. 
2. 
 
Brief facts necessary for the decision of the review petitions are 
that various constitution petitions assailing the validity of letters issued by the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan informing Arab dignitaries 
the area specified for the hunting of Houbara Bustard for the hunting season 
2013-2014 and 2014-2015 were filed in the High Courts of Balochistan and 
Sindh respectively. The learned High Court of Balochistan struck down the 
impugned letter being unlawful and directed the government of Balochistan to 
perform its duties in accordance with the Balochistan Wildlife (Protection, 
Preservation, Conservation and Management) Act, 2014 (Balochistan Act, 
2014).  Learned High Court of Sindh struck down the notification dated 23-10-
2014 issued by the Sindh Government under section 40 (1) of the Sindh 
Wildlife Ordinance, 1972 (Sindh Ordinance, 1972) removing Houbara Bustard 
from the category of protected animal and placing it in the category of game 
animal and consequently the letter issued by Ministry of Foreign Affairs was 
declared being without lawful authority. Aggrieved of the judgments the 
C.R.Ps.No.561, 568 to 570, 600 to 604 and 607/2015 etc. 
-: 4 :-
Federation, Government of Balochistan, Province of Sindh and one Atta-ur-
Rehman preferred the above mentioned Civil Petitions. During the pendency of 
the Civil Petitions one Aamir Zahoor-ul-Haq also filed a Constitution Petition 
before this Court under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution with the prayer that 
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Wildlife Departments be refrained from 
issuing any permit for hunting of Houbara Bustard. This Court allowed the 
Constitution Petition No. 38/2015 while the Civil Petitions filed by the 
Federation and Province of Balochistan and Sindh were dismissed vide 
Judgment dated 19-08-2015 as under:- 
“23. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, Civil Petition for Leave to 
Appeal No.145 of 2015, filed by the Province of Sindh, is dismissed 
and Constitutional Petition No.38 of 2015, filed by citizen-lawyer 
Mr. Amir Maroof Akhtar is allowed in the following terms:  
(i)   
The Notification is declared to be ultra vires the Sindh Wildlife 
Protection Ordinance and struck down;  
(ii) 
Neither the Federation nor a Province can grant license/permit to 
hunt the Houbara Bustard;  
(iii)  
The Federal Government is directed to ensure that its obligations 
under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) and the Convention on 
Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), which have been 
recognized by Pakistani law, are fulfilled and issue requisite 
directions to the Provinces in this regard in terms of Article 149 (1) 
of the Constitution; and   
(iv)   The Provinces to amend their respective wildlife laws to make 
them compliant with CITES and CMS and not to permit the hunting 
of any species which is either threatened with extinction or 
categorized as vulnerable.” 
3. 
 
Leading the arguments, Mr. Salman Aslam Butt, the learned 
Attorney General argued with regard to Para 23(i) that notification issued by 
the Sindh Government being temporary in nature has lapsed with time and is 
neither pressed nor defended. With regard to Para 23 (ii) he maintained that 
perusal of paragraphs 11 and 14 of the judgment reveals that this Court was 
mindful of a situation where the global population of Houbara Bustard could 
C.R.Ps.No.561, 568 to 570, 600 to 604 and 607/2015 etc. 
-: 5 :-
be at a level where sustainable hunting under the law could be allowed. 
However by placing a perpetual ban through Para 23 (ii) the judgment has 
effaced its own reasoning and findings. Further stated that perpetual ban is 
against the wildlife laws of the country. The vires of those laws have never 
been questioned, therefore perpetual ban renders them redundant, which is 
not envisaged under the law and the Constitution. Alluding to international 
convention on Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), the 
learned Attorney General maintained that CMS does not obligates Federation 
or Provinces to place a ban on the hunting of Houbara Bustard rather the same 
allows sustainable taking (hunting) of Houbara Bustard as best mean of 
conservation. He stated that according to WWF Pakistan the population of 
Houbara Bustard in Pakistan has remained stable in the last twenty year, which 
shows that sustained hunting is not in any way affecting the population of 
Houbara Bustard. Learned Attorney General, therefore, submitted that Para 23 
(ii) of the judgment be reviewed to the extent it allows hunting of Houbara 
Bustard in accordance with the law.  
4. 
 
With regard to the direction contained in Paragraph 23 (iv) of the 
judgment, the learned Attorney General contended that direction to 
legislature to legislate on a particular subject is beyond the pale of jurisdiction 
of the Apex Court. In this regard he relied upon the case tiled Al-Jehad Trust 
through HabibulWahab Al-Khairi, Advocate and 9 others v. Federation of 
Pakistan (1999 SCMR 1379). 
5. 
 
Mr. Razzaq A. Mirza, learned Addl. A. G Punjab submitted that 
Province of Punjab was not a party to the Petition and any order affecting the 
rights of the Province of Punjab could not be made. Further stated that Punjab 
Wildlife Protection Act, 1974 empowers the Provincial Government to allow 
hunting of various species of wildlife by placing them in the schedule of game 
animals, therefore permanent ban placed on the hunting of Houbara Bustard is 
against the law. He also objected to the maintainability of the petition under 
Article 184 (3) as no question of public importance for the enforcement of 
fundamental right was raised in the petition. 
C.R.Ps.No.561, 568 to 570, 600 to 604 and 607/2015 etc. 
-: 6 :-
6. 
 
Appearing for the Province of Sindh, Mr. Farooque H. Naek, Sr. 
ASC maintained that the Province of Sindh was not allowed a proper and due 
hearing. In this regard it was pointed out that the Civil Petition filed by the 
Province of Sindh was settled by late Mr. Abdul HafeezPirzada, Sr. ASC of this 
court, who also appeared in the case on number of dates of hearing, however 
his request for adjournment was declined despite the fact he was admitted in 
hospital in UK. Addl. A. G Sindh was asked to argue the case instead. Learned 
counsel also submitted that this Court erred in law by placing reliance on the 
judgment of the Sindh High Court tiled Society for Conservation and Protection 
of Environment (SCOPE), Karachi v. Federation of Pakistan, etc. (1993 MLD 320) 
while setting aside the notification dated 31-10-2014 issued by the 
Government of Sindh. According to him the facts of the SCOPE case are 
distinguishable as in the said case the circular was not issued by the 
Government in exercise of powers conferred under section 40 (1) of the Sindh 
Wildlife Protection Ordinance, 1972. It was argued that in absence of any 
malafide the notification issued in exercise of lawful authority under the law 
could not have been set aside. Referring to conventions which forms basis of 
the judgment, the learned counsel submitted that CMS was not ratified by the 
Parliament whereas Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species 
of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was not applicable to the case of hunting. In 
any event both the conventions being not made applicable through municipal 
laws of the Province the same are not enforceable by the Courts. 
7. 
 
Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Khan Swati, learned Addl. A.G. Balochistan 
while adopting the arguments of learned Attorney General and Mr. Farooque 
H. Naek added that the Balochistan (Wildlife Protection, preservation, 
Conservation and Management) Act, 2014 recognizes both CMS and CITES and 
that Houbara Bustard has been listed as a game animal under the Balochistan 
law. To the question that the Civil Petition filed by Government of Balochistan 
were dismissed being time barred he replied that as identical question was 
being decided by the Court, the delay in filing the Petitions should have been 
condoned and the same should have been decided on merits. 
C.R.Ps.No.561, 568 to 570, 600 to 604 and 607/2015 etc. 
-: 7 :-
8. 
 
On behalf of Muhammad Aslam Bhootani respondent, Mr.Kamran 
Murtaza, learned ASC appeared and submitted that under Order XXVI Rule 8 of 
the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 the review has to be heard by the same bench 
which passed the judgment. Learned ASC supported the judgment and 
contended that no ground for review has been made out, hence the petitions 
are liable to be dismissed. 
9. 
 
Power of review has been conferred upon this Court under Article 
188 of the Constitution subject to any Act of the Parliament and the rules 
framed by the Supreme Court. Order XXVI rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 
1980, framed under Article 191 of the Constitution, provides that the Supreme 
Court can review its judgment, order of any civil proceedings on the grounds 
analogous to those mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure 
Code and any criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the 
face of the record. Under Order XLVII Rule 1 a party can have recourse to 
review of a judgment on the grounds of discovery of new and important 
matter or evidence which, despite due diligence was not within his knowledge 
or could not be produced at the time of passing of the judgment or order, on 
account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any 
other sufficient reasons. Scope of the review, thus is limited and is confined 
only to error apparent on the face of the record or floating on the surface of 
the judgment which, if noticed earlier, would have direct bearing on the 
conclusions drawn by the Court. This court in the report tiled Abdul Ghaffar-
Abdul Rehman and others v. Asghar Ali and others (PLD 1998 SC 363) while 
elaborating the scope of review jurisdiction held: 
“17. From the above case law, the following principles of law are 
deducable: 
(i) 
That every judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court is 
presumed to be a considered, solemn and final decision on all 
points arising out of the case; 
(ii) 
that if the Court has taken a conscious and a deliberate decision 
on point of fact or law, a review petition will not lie; 
C.R.Ps.No.561, 568 to 570, 600 to 604 and 607/2015 etc. 
-: 8 :-
(iii) 
the fact the view canvassed in the review petition more reasonable 
than the view found favour with the Court in the judgment/order 
of which the review is sought, is not sufficient to sustain the review 
petition; 
(iv) 
that simpliciter the factum that material irregularity was 
committed would not be sufficient to review a judgment/order but 
if the material irregularity of such a nature, as to convert the 
process from being one in aid of justice to a process of injustice, a 
review petition would lie; 
(v) 
that simpliciter the fact that the conclusion recorded in the 
judgment/order is wrong does not warrant the review of the same 
but if the conclusion is wrong because something obvious has been 
overlooked by the Court or it has failed to consider some 
important aspect of the matter, a review petition would lie; 
(vi) 
that if the error in the judgment/order is so manifest and is 
floating on the surface, which is so material that had the same 
been noticed prior to the rendering of the judgment the conclusion 
would have been different, in such a case a review petition would 
lie; 
(vii) that the power of review cannot be invoked as a routine matter to 
rehear a case which has already been decided nor change of a 
counsel would warrant sustaining a review petition, but the same 
can be pressed into service where a glaring omission or patent 
mistake has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility; 
(viii) that the Constitution does not place any restriction on the powers 
of the Supreme Court to review its earlier decisions or even to 
depart from them nor the doctrine stare decisis come its way so 
long review is warranted in view of the significant impact on the 
fundamental rights of citizens or in the interest of public good; 
(ix) 
that the Court is competent to review its judgment/order suo moto 
without any formal application; 
(x) 
that the under the Supreme Court Rules, its sits in divisions and not 
as a whole, Each Bench whether small or large exercises the same 
powers vested in the Supreme Court and decisions rendered by the 
Benches irrespective of their size are decisions of the Court having 
the same binding nature.” 
C.R.Ps.No.561, 568 to 570, 600 to 604 and 607/2015 etc. 
-: 9 :-
10. 
 
Keeping in view of the limited scope of review jurisdiction, we will 
now consider the arguments of the review petitioners to see if their case falls 
within the ambit of review jurisdiction of this Court. Before proceeding further 
it will be advantageous to examine the various provisions of the wildlife laws of 
the Provinces and international conventions on the subject.  
11. 
 
All the provinces had their wildlife laws with common object, as 
set out in their preambles, to protect, preserve, conserve and manage wildlife. 
The Balochistan Act, 2014 and KPK Wildlife and Biodiversity (Protection, 
Preservation, Conservation and Management) Act, 2015 (KPK Act, 2015) 
recognizes CMS and CITES. Balochistan Act, 2014 list Houbara Bustard both as 
protected and game animal. The wildlife laws of the Punjab and Sindh are 
identical but for some minor variations. All the laws categorized wildlife into 
protected and game animal. Hunting of the protected animals is prohibited 
whereas license is required to hunt game animals. Under these laws the 
governments of respective Provinces are empowered to grant exemption from 
hunting and capturing of any animal as well as enjoy power to remove any 
animal from the protected list and to place it in the category of game animal 
and vice versa. Thus under the Sindh Ordinance, 1972, the Balochistan Act 
2014, the Punjab Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and 
Management) Act, 1974 (Punjab Act, 1974) and the KPK Act, 2015 even 
protected animal are subject to change in status and change of schedule from 
protected to game animal in accordance with the law,  can be hunted. 
12. 
 
International convention on the Conservation of Migratory 
Species of Wild Animals (CMS) is an environmental treaty under the aegis of 
the United Nations Environment Programme. CMS provides a global platform 
for the conservation and sustainable use of migratory animals and their 
habitats. Article-II of the convention provides that the range states shall 
endeavor to conserve the endangered species and other species, conservation 
status of which is unfavourable. In particular, the parties shall provide 
immediate protection to the migratory species included in Appendix-I and 
endeavor to conclude agreements for the conservation and management of 
C.R.Ps.No.561, 568 to 570, 600 to 604 and 607/2015 etc. 
-: 10 :-
species having unfavourable conservation status in Appendix-II. Article-III 
stipulates that Appendix-I shall list endangered species and range states of 
such species shall prohibit taking of such animals. Species which have been 
accorded unfavourable conservation status, according to Article-IV, shall be 
listed in Appendix-II. Houbara Bustard has been placed in the said Appendix-II 
of the CMS. Guidelines for agreements amongst range states have been 
provided in Article-V. With regard to species having unfavourable conservation 
status, the CMS requires range states to take measures, inter-alia on sound 
ecological principles, to control and manage the taking/hunting of the 
migratory species and adopt procedures for coordinating actions to suppress 
illegal taking. 
13. 
 
We have noted above, that CMS does not in a way cast a duty 
upon the Federation or the Provinces to place a ban on the hunting of the 
species having unfavourable conservation status. It only endeavours for the 
range states to enter into bilateral or multi-lateral agreements or treaties for 
the conservation of such migratory species. No doubt the fundamental 
principle on which the convention is based (Article-II) obliges the parties to 
take individually or in cooperation appropriate or necessary steps to conserve 
such species and their habitat, such steps may include taking/hunting of 
species on sound ecological principles. However, what steps can be or should 
be taken, falls within the policy realm of the executive and this Court has 
always shown restraint in interfering into this domain. On the other hand, 
Fundamental principle, upon which CITES is based, is that strict regulation be 
put in place to stop the trade of such species across the borders so as not to 
endanger their survival any further. In this regard the Pakistan Trade Control of 
Wild Fauna and Flora Act, 2012 (Act, 2012) has been promulgated. Both CITES 
and Act, 2012 relates to prevention of trade of species and therefore, not 
applicable to the present controversy. In fact Act, 2012 supplements the 
efforts for the conservation of such species by placing an embargo upon their 
export from Pakistan, thus controlling illegal poaching and trapping of the birds 
for trade. 
C.R.Ps.No.561, 568 to 570, 600 to 604 and 607/2015 etc. 
-: 11 :-
14. 
 
Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species of 
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an international agreement between 
governments. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild 
animals and plants does not threaten their survival. According to Article-II of 
CITES all species threatened with extinction which are or may be affected by 
trade, their trade must be subject to strict regulation in order not to further 
endanger their survival.  
15. 
 
Red List of International Union for the Conservation of Nature and 
Natural Resources (IUCN) places Houbara Bustard in the category of 
“vulnerable” below “near threatened” and “least concern” categories and 
above “endangered”, “critically endangered”, “extinct in the wild” and 
“extinct” categories. IUCN considers hunting primarily using falconry as a 
principal threat to its conservation. Under proposed conservation action, IUCN 
considers adopting conservation measures that will reduce exploitation to a 
sustainable level and to determine number of birds that can be hunted legally. 
16. 
 
It can be seen that even IUCN recognizes sustainable use of the 
natural resources. Local communities plays a pivotal role in the conservation of 
a specie. Without the involvement of the local communities no conservation 
effort can be successful. Unless the economic value of saving the migratory 
species is raised to a level where it benefits the resident of those area its 
conservation will always be in jeopardy. Considering the economic 
backwardness of the areas where these migratory species land, it is very hard 
for conservation efforts to be successful without uplifting the economic well-
being of those areas. It is for this reason that trophy hunting has been a 
successful tool for the conservation of endangered species throughout the 
world. Balochistan Act, 2014 defines trophy in section 2 (lll) which includes any 
dead wild animal and its feathers. Section 2 (c) defines animal to include birds. 
Thus by allowing limited hunting for a limited days under a license in 
consideration of a huge sum the Balochistan Act. 2014 has accorded a 
statutory backing to trophy hunting. We presume, in absence of any material 
on the contrary, that the amount so generated is used for the uplifting of the 
C.R.Ps.No.561, 568 to 570, 600 to 604 and 607/2015 etc. 
-: 12 :-
people of the area where the licensees hunt so that they have an economic 
interest in conserving the specie rather than indulging in illegal hunting, 
poaching and trapping for personal consumption or for trade. 
17.  
 
Having considered the laws and international conventions relating 
to migratory species of wild animals, we will now revert to examining the 
merits and demerits of the arguments advanced by the petitioners considering 
the limited scope of review jurisdiction of this Court. First we will address the 
objection raised by Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned ASC for the respondent on 
the formation of the Bench. Rule 8 of Order XXVI of Supreme Court Rules, 1980 
stipulates that as far as practical the review will be heard by the same Bench. 
The Rule provides a flexibility in constitution of the Bench, and rightly so, as 
there may be situation where the constitution of the same Bench may be 
impossible for the reason beyond the control of anyone, as in case of 
retirement of a judge or his indisposition on account of failing health. The 
objection therefore, is misconceived and accordingly repelled. 
18. 
 
The counsel for the petitioners are unanimous on the point that 
perpetual ban on hunting of Houbara Bustard is neither envisaged by the 
wildlife laws of the country nor an obligation under the international 
conventions. Bare reading of the Balochistan Act, 2014, KPK Act, 2015, Punjab 
Act, 1974 and Sindh Ordinance 2015 shows that hunting of Houbara Bustard is 
allowed subject to license. Sindh Government through the notification dated 
31-10-2014 changed the status of the specie from protected to game animal, 
which notification has been struck down by the learned High Court of Sindh 
and Civil Petition against the said judgment has been dismissed by this Court. 
The question before us is whether in presence of the positive laws permitting 
hunting of Houbara Bustard under a license, perpetual ban on hunting can be 
placed when the vires of the wildlife laws and their constitutional validity are 
not challenged and remain intact. 
19. 
 
We have noted that the Balochistan law places Houbara Bustard 
both in protected and game animal categories. To us it is not an anomaly. 
According to Article-IV of CMS a migratory specie can be listed in both 
C.R.Ps.No.561, 568 to 570, 600 to 604 and 607/2015 etc. 
-: 13 :-
Appendices. Sustainable use of natural resources is central to its conservation. 
We will discuss this aspect later in the judgment. 
20. 
 
There is yet another aspect of the case which require serious 
consideration. Mr. Farooque H. Naek, learned Sr. ASC pointed out that CMS has 
not been ratified by the Parliament. In this regard reliance has been placed 
upon the report Societe Generale De Surveillance S.A v. Pakistan through 
Secretary, Ministry of Finance (2002 SCMR 1694). It is well settled proposition 
of law that international treaties and convention unless incorporated in the 
municipal laws, the same cannot be enforced domestically. In the judgment 
relied upon by the learned Sr. ASC this Court held: 
“Admittedly, in Pakistan, the provision of Treaty were not incorporated 
through legislation into the laws of the country, therefore, the same did 
not have the effect of altering the existing laws, as such, rights arising 
therefrom called treaty rights cannot be enforced through Court as in 
such a situation, the Court is not vested with the power to do so” 
Unless, therefore, CMS is incorporated into municipal laws the same cannot be 
enforced. Balochistan Act, 2014 and KPK Act, 2015 recognizes CMS, however as 
noted above Balochistan Act, 2014 places Houbara Bustard both in protected 
and game animal categories. 
21. 
 
We have also noted that the Civil Petitions filed by the 
Government of Balochistan against the judgment of the learned High Court of 
Balochistan were dismissed on the ground of limitation. As common question 
of law was being heard by this Court, hence delay should have been condoned 
and petitions decided on merit. In this regard we are fortified by the judgment 
of this Court rendered in Mehreen Zaibun Nissa v. Land Commissioner, Multan 
and others (PLD 1975 SC 397). 
22. 
 
Our constitution is based upon trichotomy of power. Each organ 
of the state has its sphere of jurisdiction and cannot transcend into the domain 
of the other. Role of the judiciary is to interpret the laws and not to legislate. It 
thus follows that unless the constitutionality of the law is tested on the 
C.R.Ps.No.561, 568 to 570, 600 to 604 and 607/2015 etc. 
-: 14 :-
touchstone of constitutional provisions and struck down, it will remain law of 
the land and duty of the Court would be to enforce the same. 
23. 
 
Examination of the laws clearly shows that permanent ban on 
hunting of Houbara Bustard is not envisaged. Under the Balochistan Act, 2014 
Houbara Bustard is listed as game animal. Under the Sindh Ordinance, 1972 the 
government has the power to add or exclude any animal from the schedule. 
This Court while placing a complete ban on hunting of Houbara Bustard has 
seemingly overlooked the anomaly created by it. Further in view of the law laid 
down by this Court in the judgment reported as Al-Jehad Trust through 
HabibulWahab Al-Khairi, advoccat and 9 others v. Federation of Pakistan (1999 
SCMR 1379) and other dicta of the Court, we also need to examine if a 
direction can be issued to the legislature by the superior courts to legislate on a 
particular subject as has been so directed in the judgment under review. 
24.  
 
Having made the foregoing observations, we note that provincial 
governments exercise discretionary power conferred by respective provincial 
laws to classify animals as ‘protected’ or ‘game’ species. During the hearing of 
these petitions, the learned Attorney General and the learned counsel for the 
Province of Sindh have referred to limitations and checks imposed by the 
government on hunting of Houbara Bustard. These are reflected, inter alia, in 
the terms and condition of hunting permits issued by the provincial 
governments, the creation of protected areas, the scheduling of different areas 
for hunting during the season and so forth. The criteria and considerations on 
the basis of which the provincial governments exercise their regulatory power 
under their respective wildlife legislation have, however, not been shown to 
the Court. Ultimately, it is the adequacy and propriety of the regulatory 
measures that can in a sustainable manner achieve the statutory object of 
protecting, preserving, conserving and managing wildlife.  That statutory object 
applies not just to the Houbara Bustard but to all endangered, vulnerable or 
near threatened wildlife. In this context the Court is inclined to examine the 
legal propriety of the discretionary safeguards applied by the provincial 
governments for assessing their relevance and reasonableness for attaining the 
C.R.Ps.No.561, 568 to 570, 600 to 604 and 607/2015 etc. 
-: 15 :-
objects of wildlife legislation in respect of all vulnerable and threatened game 
species including the Houbara Bustard. Therefore, we are setting out the 
matters for hearing afresh, thus leave the above noted proposition open to be 
examined by the Bench hearing the cases. 
25. 
 
In such view of the matter there is an apparent error on the face of 
record. We therefore, allow these review petitions, set aside the judgment 
dated 19.08.2015. The Civil Petitions and the Constitution Petition shall be 
listed for hearing afresh. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
JUDGE  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE  
 
 
JUDGE 
Announced in open Court 
on __________ at __________ 
Not Approved For Reporting 
Waqas Naseer/* 
 
 
C.R.Ps.No.561, 568 to 570, 600 to 604 and 607/2015 etc. 
-: 16 :-
ORDER OF THE COURT 
 
 
 
 
By majority of four to one (Qazi Faez Isa, J. dissenting), it is held 
that there is an apparent error on the face of record. We therefore, allow these 
review petitions, set aside the judgment dated 19.08.2015. The Civil Petitions 
and the Constitution Petition shall be listed for hearing afresh. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
JUDGE  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE  
 
 
JUDGE 
Announced in open Court 
on 22.01.2016 at Islamabad 
Not Approved For Reporting 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge