‘Monal restaurant case’: FCC explains reasons for setting aside SC’s verdict

In its comprehensive ruling on the Monal Restaurant demolition case, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Friday clarified the grounds for nullifying the Supreme Court's order that mandated the relocation of the Monal Restaurant from the Margalla Hills National Park (MHNP). The 44-page judgment, penned by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, noted that the Supreme Court seemingly disregarded the weight and legal implications of the term "for recreation" as outlined in Section 21(2) of the 1979 Ordinance and Regulation 4 (3) (b) of the 1992 Regulations.

A three-judge Supreme Court panel, presided over by former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and consisting of Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, on September 10, 2024, had mandated the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board to assume control over the properties of the Monal Restaurant, La Montana, Gloria Jeans, and Sunshine Heights (Pvt.)

Limited, which were situated within the Margalla Hills National Park. The Supreme Court's conclusion asserted that "the construction and operation of restaurants contravened the park's purpose and lacked any connection to public education or research, thereby barring their function." Justice Rizvi argued that this statement effectively prohibited any restaurant operations within the MHNP indefinitely, a result that was not anticipated or intended by the legal framework governing the park.

On July 13, 2026, a three-judge FCC bench, led by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, accepted the review petitions submitted by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and the Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad (MCI), and directed the trial courts to promptly address the ownership dispute at the Monal Restaurant site. The FCC observed that a clause similar to Section 21 of the 1979 Ordinance was later reenacted as Section 12 of the Islamabad Nature Conservation and Wildlife Management Act of 2024.

Consequently, the Supreme Court's conclusion contradicted the explicit wording, the intended meaning, and the coherent interpretation of Section 21 of the Ordinance of 1979 in conjunction with Regulation 4 (3) (b) of the 1992 Regulations. This interpretation rendered subsection (3) of Section 21 redundant and stripped the term 'recreation' of its conventional, natural, and intended significance.

The correct course of action was not to decide the issue of restaurant existence within the National Park in general, but to assess whether the specific structures or activities, as evidenced in the case, undermined the purpose for which the National Park was established. This determination needed to be made based on the available evidence rather than by enforcing an absolute prohibition supported by no legal foundation.

Thus, the Supreme Court's conclusion recorded in paragraph 15 of the reviewed judgment is set aside. The FCC stated that the Inter-Court Appeals (ICAs) filed by the aggrieved parties against the Islamabad High Court's judgment, which are currently under review, will be evaluated independently, focusing on the relief sought in the writ petitions, solely on their individual merits, and in line with legal principles.

The FCC added that since the Civil Revision and the Foreign Affairs Office (FAO) proceedings emerged from interlocutory orders issued by the Civil Court, the FCC's ruling, which dismisses those cases, does not warrant any interference. However, the plaintiffs may file any new applications at an appropriate stage before the Civil Court.