ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday issued notices to the respondents in an Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) filed by the Capital Development Authority (CDA), challenging a judgment that not only invalidated a tax imposed by the authority but also ordered CDA’s complete dissolution.
A division bench comprising Justice Muhammad Azam Khan and Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro heard the ICA filed by CDA through its chairman against the Multi-Professional Cooperative Housing Society (MPCHS).
The appeal contests the June 19, 2025, ruling of Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, who allowed the writ petition filed by owners of fuel stations and declared CDA’s Right of Way (ROW) charges unlawful.
In a development with far-reaching implications for Islamabad’s governance, Justice Kayani’s 27-page verdict struck down SRO No. 576(I)/2015, which imposed ROW charges on housing societies and businesses accessing major roads like the Islamabad Expressway.
The court ruled that the CDA lacked the legal authority to impose such levies following the enactment of the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) Local Government Act 2015.
The judgment found that the 2015 law implicitly repealed Section 15-A of the CDA Ordinance 1960 — the provision that allowed CDA to carry out municipal functions. Justice Kayani concluded that the CDA had “lost its operative relevance” and ordered the federal government to dissolve the 65-year-old civic body under Section 52 of its founding ordinance, transferring all assets, powers, and responsibilities to the elected Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad (MCI).
The court also ruled that all funds collected by CDA under the invalidated SRO must be refunded, and municipal taxation powers now rest solely with MCI, as per Articles 77 and 140-A of the Constitution and Sections 88–90 of the ICT Local Government Act.
CDA’s legal team contended that Justice Kayani exceeded constitutional limits under Article 199(1A) by directing the dissolution of CDA despite no such relief being sought by the petitioners.
The CDA termed the ruling a form of suo motu jurisdiction, which is constitutionally barred for high courts.
Relying on the Supreme Court precedent PLD 2025 SC 11 (Federal Government Employees Housing Authority v. Ednan Syed), the counsel argued that only the federal cabinet can dissolve CDA under Section 52 of the 1960 Ordinance — and that too via official notification.
The CDA counsel further argued that the ROW charges were a procedural regulatory action allowed under Sections 15, 15-A, and 51 of the CDA Ordinance. Challenging such notices through writ petitions, they claimed, was not maintainable in law.
The CDA also criticised the judgment of Justice Kayani for failing to appreciate the statutory scheme and objectives of its Ordinance, referencing the 2018 judgment of the IHC, which upheld the authority’s municipal role.
After hearing the arguments, the IHC bench observed that the submissions merit consideration and issued notices to the respondents via registered post and courier service. The case will be relisted after completion of notice formalities.
Published in Dawn, July 24th, 2025
