IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
 
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH   
 
MR. JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED 
 
 
  
 
CIVIL PETITIONS NOS. 4540 & 4541 OF 2021 
(Against the order dated 3.8.2021 of the Lahore High Court, 
Lahore passed in WP No.48537/21 & WP No.48555/21) 
 
Federation of Pakistan thr. Secy. 
M/o Industries & Production 
and another  
 
 
 
       … Petitioners in both cases 
 
 
 
  Versus 
Hamza Sugar Mills Ltd. 
Rahim Yar Khan and others 
 
       …   Respondents in CP.4540/21 
- 
    
Hunza Sugar Mills Ltd., Lahore and others   …   Respondents in CP.4541/21 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Ch. Aamir Rehman, Addl. A.G.  
 
 
 
 
Mr. Asad Ali Bajwa, DAG 
 
For Respondents Nos.1-8:  Mr. Ali Sibtain Fazli, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
 
 
 
(in CP-4541/21) 
 
For Respondents Nos.1-8: Mr. Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Shehryar Kasuri, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Husnain Ibrahim Kazmi, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(in CP-4540/21) 
 
For Respondents Nos.5-6: Mr. Salman Akram Raja, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(in CP-4540/21) 
Date of hearing: 
 
12.08.2021 
  
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
Umar Ata Bandial, J. Learned Additional Attorney General 
has read to us from an order dated 07.04.2021 passed in Writ Petition 
No.22977/2021. That order refers to meetings being conducted by the 
Federal and Provincial Government authorities with the management of 
sugar mills in the Province of Punjab for fixing the price of sugar. The 
CP.4540-4541 of 2021 
2
minutes of that meeting are reproduced in the said order. It appears that a 
pricing formula of sugar, ex factory and retail, based on the costs incurred 
by the sugar mills was settled with the government authorities. However, 
the latter fixed a different price of sugar on which stocks were to be 
released by sugar mills in the market. This intervention by the regulators 
was challenged in the said writ petition for being incompetent and 
without lawful authority. However, the Court ordered the requisite stock 
to be released for the month of Ramadan at the disputed price. The order 
also refers to an earlier proceedings pending in the High Court in Writ 
Petition No.3834 of 2020 wherein the question of vires of similar impugned 
action is already under consideration. Several writ petitions have since 
been filed by interests in the sugar industry. The order dated 03.08.2021 
impugned before us is an interim order passed in a recent writ petition. 
That order is assailed by the Federal Government for having been passed 
on the first date of hearing without affording any opportunity of hearing 
to the government regulators whose notification dated 30.07.2021 fixing 
the policy sale price of sugar has been put in abeyance. A surety bond for 
the differential amount from the higher price charged by the respondent 
sugar mills has been ordered as security.  
2. 
 
The Constitutional Courts of the country have a duty to 
resolve legal disputes coming before them in accordance with the 
Constitution and the law. In the discharge of their duties and functions, 
the Courts do not supervise pricing nor monitor profit and loss dealings 
by or between the stakeholders. In our view, the High Court has in the 
present case entered the uncertain territory of monitoring commercial and 
policy terms regulating the supply of an edible commodity in the market. 
This endeavour is far removed from its jurisdiction vested by Article 199 
CP.4540-4541 of 2021 
3
of the Constitution and is likely to involve technical details that are 
outside the realm of judicial adjudication. The common questions of law 
and jurisdiction raised in the petitions pending before the High Court are 
already noted for its determination in Writ Petition No.3834 of 2020. 
Notices under Order XXVII-A CPC have also been issued to the Law 
Officers of the Federation and the Province. The respondent private 
parties who are present before us are also ready to proceed with their 
cases. We consider that judicial consideration by the High Court ought to 
be devoted to resolving the legal dispute between the parties rather than 
the pricing mechanism regulating commercial and policy matters. 
Accordingly, the learned High Court shall make a serious effort to decide 
the legal issues arising for determination in this matter within a fortnight 
from the date of receipt of this order. If either party prolongs the 
proceedings on account of adjournments or otherwise they shall be subject 
to penalization, inter alia, by modification of the terms of the interim 
relief ordered below.  
3. 
 
The impugned interim order dated 3.8.2021 protects the 
interest of the respondents mill-owners on the strength of a surety bond 
equal to the difference in price charged by them and the price fixed by the 
regulators on 30.07.2021. We do not consider that the surety bond 
constitutes sufficient security for the regulators. According to the 
impugned order, the Cane Commissioner is maintaining the records of 
production and sales of all sugar mills in the Province. He shall continue 
to do so and keep an account of the amount charged and collected by the 
sugar mills and the amount fixed by the regulators at the stage (ex-factory 
and/or retail) specified by the latter. The difference in the two amounts 
shall be deposited contemporaneously by each sugar mill with the Deputy 
CP.4540-4541 of 2021 
4
Registrar (Judicial) of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Such deposits shall 
be made voluntarily but shall be subject to replenishment forthwith to the 
correct amount that is notified to the erring sugar mill by the Cane 
Commissioner. In case of dispute about the amount of the requisite 
deposit to be made during the pendency of the petition before the learned 
High Court, the amount fixed by the Cane Commissioner shall prevail. 
These petitions are converted into appeals and are disposed of in the 
terms mentioned above.  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
Islamabad, the 
12th August, 2021 
 M. Azhar Malik+ Irshad Hussain/*     
 
NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING.