Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Muhammad Jamil Zahid VS Respondent: Federation of Pakistan Honorable Justice Abid Hussain Chattha Muhammad Kamran, Muhammad Israr Ch., Amir Ajam Malik and Asif Imran Teja , Rai Mazhar Hussain Kharal
CITATION: 2026 MLD 1458 CASE: 2026L2569 TITLE: Muhammad Jamil Zahid VS Federation of Pakistan Honorable Justice Abid Hussain Chattha Muhammad Kamran, Muhammad Israr Ch., Amir Ajam Malik and Asif Imran Teja , Rai Mazhar Hussain Kharal COURT: LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE YEAR: 2026 JOURNAL: MLD ============================================================
305 2026 M L D 1458 [Lahore (Bahawalpur Bench)] Before Abid Hussain Chattha, J Muhammad Jamil Zahid ---Petitioner Versus Federation of Pakistan and 11 others---Respondents Writ Petition No. 6195 of 2025 and other connected cases, decided on 29th October, 2025. (a) Punjab Price Control of Essential Commodities Act (VII of 2024)--- ----Ss.2(f), 2(i), 5(2), 4, 6, 8, 12, 18 & 22---Fixing of maximum retail price of wheat by government---Vires of notification viz. price mechanism, controlling artificial price hiking and profiteering of essential commodities, challenge to---Deregulated wheat regime, protection against---Coercive measures against declared wheat stocks of the petitioners---Petitioners claimed lawful wheat stocks and a legitimate right to sell at a fair price asserting they could not be forced to dispose of their property at an arbitrary or depressed rate---Legality, due process and fundamental rights---Protection against arbitrary price fixation and forced sale of stock---Scope---Brief facts of the matter were that the petitions were filed by various wheat cultivators, seed producers, traders, and stock-holders who had lawfully declared and stored wheat during the 2025 harvest season under the deregulated wheat regime introduced by the government through the Policy Notification dated 22.04.2025, which permitted free procurement, movement, storage, and sale of wheat and explicitly prohibited anti-hoarding actions---After market prices rose, the director general (food) issued notification fixing the maximum retail price of wheat at Rs.3,000 per 40 kg under the Punjab Price Control of Essential Commodities Act, 2024, following which the government authorities began taking coercive measures to seize wheat stocks and compel sales at the fixed rate---The core issue requiring determination before the High Court was whether the government could lawfully fix the maximum price of wheat and enforce coercive sale or confiscatory actions in light of the binding cabinet-approved deregulation policy, and whether the impugned notification was within jurisdiction, consistent with law, and compliant with constitutional guarantees? ---Held: Objection of the respondents that the present petitions questioning the policy measures of the government could not be examined by the High Court was unfounded and same was turned down---The matters of policy that purportedly appeared to the Court to be unconstitutional or unlawful violating the fundamental rights conferred upon the citizens could be validly and legitimately examined---Second objection to the effect that the petitioners had not availed the remedy of appeal under S.12 of the Price Control Act was equally misconceived since the vires of the impugned notification had been questioned being without jurisdiction on account of its inconsistency with the policy notification and the Constitution---Remedy of appeal provided under the Price Control Act could not be termed as effective or efficacious---On merits of the case, the declared wheat stocks of the farmers, producers and traders under the policy notification could not be confiscated and they could not be compelled to sell their wheat stocks to the flourmills at the rate fixed in the impugned notification---The only option available to the government was to acquire wheat stocks in the required quantity through competitive bidding under the Procurement Rules---This constituted the essence of the deregulation plan encompassed in the policy notification---Moreover, it was emphasized that anti-hoarding laws could not been forced against any person holding declared wheat stocks in view of express protection granted under the policy notification---A subordinate functionary of the government could not invoke the Price Control Act to arbitrarily fix the price of wheat in the absence of any stipulation to this effect in the policy notification approved by the Provincial Cabinet, thus overriding and superimposing his decision on that of the elected Cabinet---Impugned notification was unconstitutional and unlawful being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, confiscatory, unreasonable and inconsistent with the covenants of the policy notification approved by the Cabinet of the Province, as such, same was struck down---Government could not deprive one class of persons from receiving lawful and due compensation of its property in order to provide subsidy to the citizens---Therefore, if the government intended to provide wheat, flour and roti at a price less than the prevailing market price, the price differential must be borne by the government and the same could not be realized by indirect compulsory sale of private wheat stocks without payment of due compensation at competitive market rates---Impugned notification was set aside and it was declared that during the subsistence and continuation of deregulation plan pursuant to the policy notification, the government or its functionaries had no lawful authority to fix the maximum retail price of wheat and the government was only entitled to purchase wheat through an open competitive bidding under the Punjab Procurement Rules; and the owners of declared wheat stocks were to remain protected against anti-hoarding actions---Constitutional petitions were allowed, in circumstances. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Judicial review---High Court s interference in policy matters---Scope---Judicial restraint is generally exercised in the matters of government policy based on the premises that policy measures fall within the administrative and executive domain of the government---However, it is equally well settled that power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution is always available to interfere in such policy matters which are found to be unconstitutional, unlawful, arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide---The matters of policy that purportedly appear to the Court to be unconstitutional or unlawful violating the fundamental rights conferred upon the citizens can be validly and legitimately examined. Senior General Manager, Pakistan Railways and others v. Muhammad Pervaiz 2024 SCMR 581 rel. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts.4, 9, 14, 23, 24 & 25---Constitutional guarantees provided to the citizens---Scope---Article 4 of the Constitution ordains that to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen---Article 9 unequivocally proclaims that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law---Needless to state that the right to earn livelihood in accordance with law is an inseparable part of the right to life---Article 14 of the Constitution preserves and protects the dignity of the person---Article 24 of the Constitution grants freedom of trade, business or profession subject to such qualifications, if any, as may be prescribed by law and allows regulation by a licensing system or regulation in the interest of free competition---More importantly, Art.23 of the Constitution declares that every citizen shall have the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property in any part of Pakistan, subject to the Constitution and any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in public interest---Similarly, Art.24 of the Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with law and that no property shall be compulsorily acquired or taken possession of save for a public purpose, and save by the authority of law which provides for compensation thereof and either fixes the amount of compensation or specifies the principles on and the manner in which compensation is to be determined subject to protection accorded to the validity of certain laws in specified conditions as listed in Art.24(3) of the Constitution---Equal protection of law and due process is also guaranteed under Art.25 of the Constitution. Muhammad Kamran, Muhammad Israr Ch., Amir Ajam Malik and Asif Imran Teja for Petitioner. Ms. Riffat Yasmin, Assistant Attorney General for Federation of Pakistan. Malik Shah Rukh, Assistant Attorney General for Federation of Pakistan. Rai Mazhar Hussain Kharal, Assistant Advocate General along with Muhammad Asghar Ali Rind, Senior Law Officer, Commissioner Office, Bahawalpur, Shabbir Muhammad Khan, SDEO, Bahawalpur, Shah Behram, DDF, Bahawalpur, Shahbaz Sippra, DFC, Bahawalpur and Adeel Ahmed, DFC Bahawalpur for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st October, 2025. Judgment Abid Hussain Chattha, J .--- This single Judgment shall decide the titled as well as connected W.Ps. Nos. 6432, 6447, 6486, 6903, 6966, 7184 and 7214 of 2025 involving common set of facts and questions of law. 2. Wheat is a major staple and food security crop of Pakistan. Historically, the policy measures employed by the Government from time to time to regulate the procurement, pricing, distribution and sale of wheat have led to multiple disputes amongst the stakeholders including the Government, growers, flour mill owners, seed producers and persons involved in the supply chain of wheat and its by-products. The instant controversy between the Government of the Punjab and owners of wheat stocks emanates from the policy measures approved by the Government of the Punjab regarding the wheat harvest season, 2025. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to explain the precise factual context in order to determine the moot questions requiring consideration of this Court. 3. Traditionally, wheat has been a semi regulated sector controlled by the Government in an endeavor to maintain balance amongst conflicting interests of various stakeholders. As a norm, the Government used to fix Minimum Support Price (the MSP ) to be enforced at the time of wheat harvest season to ensure that farmers may not be deprived from receiving minimum fair price of their produce in the wake of possible price crash due to abundant and surplus supply. Thus, the Government would buy and procure a handsome quantity of wheat at the MSP fixed by it in competition with the private sector to build a strategic reserve of wheat stock which was subsequently released and sold to private flour mills as per their grinding capacity quotas at intervals on fixed prices till the arrival of next crop. The sale price of wheat was fixed by the Government a little above the MSP after counting in the costs of transportation, storage and financing. The primary policy aim has been to ensure an adequate supply of wheat in the market to ensure price stability so that wheat and its by-products, particularly, roti is available to the masses at an affordable rate. 4. Lately, the Provincial Cabinet of the Punjab duly approved the Wheat Procurement Policy, 2024-2025 (the Wheat Policy ) circulated vide letter dated 16.04.2024 which not only explicitly fixed MSP of wheat at Rs. 3,900 / 40 Kg for the wheat harvest season, 2024 but also encouraged private buying as per Clause XXI thereof, stipulating that private purchase, transportation and storage of wheat will be allowed subject to declaration of wheat stocks with District Administration / DFC or on FLMIS for record purpose. Nevertheless, negligible quantity of wheat was procured by the Government of the Punjab during the wheat harvest season, 2024 under the Wheat Policy as the Government of the Punjab held adequate carryover stocks of wheat. Consequently, the private sector purchased most of wheat from the growers and the market primarily functioned based on the principles of free market economy of demand and supply but subject to Government control. 5. Importantly, during the current wheat harvest season, 2025, the Government of the Punjab publicly announced a policy shift towards deregulation of wheat by adopting a free-market approach and did not announce any MSP of wheat, thereby, allowing the private sector to procure, store, distribute and sell wheat with no restrictions on inter-district or inter-provincial movement of wheat in order to relieve logistical and fiscal burden upon the Government Exchequer. The policy measures were approved by the Cabinet of the Punjab and notified vide Notification No. SO(F-1)3-1/2025-26 dated 22.04.2025 (the Policy Notification ) overriding and preempting the Wheat Policy. 6. Consequently, the Government of the Punjab did not procure wheat during the harvest season, 2025 and the private sector involved in the supply chain of wheat without any discrimination was allowed to procure, store, supply and sell wheat pursuant to the Policy Notification subject to declaration of stocks intended to provide accurate information to the Government regarding availability of stock to ensure supply chain transparency. Due to surplus supply, the market crashed during the wheat harvest season, 2025 to a price ranging from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 2,300 / 40kg. The available stock was purchased by the private sector at distressed price and many persons including the cultivators were compelled to store wheat in the hope of selling it later as and when the market stabilizes and achieves a reasonable price. 7. Nevertheless, the Director General (Food) / Cane Commissioner issued Notification No. ADF-1(Wheat Policy)/2025 dated 04.09.2025 (the impugned Notification ) in exercise of powers conferred under Section 5(2) of the Punjab Price Control of Essential Commodities Act, 2024 (the Price Control Act ), thereby, fixing maximum retail price of wheat as Rs. 3,000 / 40 Kg with immediate effect and to remain in force until withdrawn or altered for the Province of the Punjab. It directs that no dealer, wholesale dealer, retail dealer or retailer shall charge or cause to be charged, the maximum retail price of wheat offered for sale in excess of the rate fixed and notified. 8. The impugned Notification was issued at a time when statedly the price of wheat in the private sector ranged approximately between Rs. 3,500 to 3,800 / 40 Kg at different locations in the Province of the Punjab. It is alleged that under the garb of the impugned Notification, the Government and its functionaries resorted to multiple coercive measures against the holders of wheat stocks in the Province of the Punjab in an attempt to confiscate stocks and compel the owners to sell it to private flour mills at the fixed price so that the prices of flour and roti can be maintained at the rates deemed appropriate to the Government. 9. The Petitioners claiming themselves as cultivators, registered seed purchasers, traders and food grains license holders invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the Constitution ) by contending that they are in lawful possession of declared wheat stocks in different quantities identified in their respective Petitions which constitutes their hard-earned moveable property. They held their wheat stocks relying upon the Wheat Policy and the Policy Notification so that they can sell their stocks at a reasonable price not less than MSP of wheat announced for the previous harvest season, 2024 which was itself approved by the Cabinet of the Punjab, as such, cannot be forced to sell their stocks at an arbitrary and unreasonable price. 10.
Notices were issued to the Respondents with the direction to submit report and para-wise comments. Interim protection was extended to the Petitioners against coercive measures being employed against them. Notices were also issued to the Attorney General of Pakistan and the Advocate General, Punjab under Order XXVII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the points raised in the Petitions involved interpretation of the Constitution. Learned Assistant Attorney Generals and Assistant Advocate General stated that they have received requisite instructions to argue the case. 11.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the impugned Notification is not only inconsistent with the MSP of wheat fixed in the Wheat Policy and the Policy Notification but also purportedly compels all stakeholders including growers to sell their wheat stocks at an abnormally low price than the earlier declared price in the Wheat Policy. The draconian coercive measures being employed under the facade of the impugned Notification are against the express mandate of the Wheat Policy and the Policy Notification. The impugned Notification was issued without the publication of any supporting material, consultation of stakeholders and without any notice to the affected growers and persons involved in the supply chain of wheat by explaining the factual basis for overriding or pre-empting the Wheat Policy and the Policy Notification. This is particularly so when the MSP of wheat fixed by the Government of the Punjab under the Wheat Policy was approved by the Provincial Cabinet after extensive consultations by factoring in cultivation costs, market realities and food security concerns. Therefore, the impugned Notification which unilaterally, arbitrarily and unreasonably directs to sell wheat at Rs. 3,000 / 40 Kg is unconstitutional, unlawful, arbitrary, confiscatory, unreasonable, without jurisdiction, void ab initio and of no legal effect, offending fundamental rights of the Petitioners granted under Articles 4, 9, 18, 23, 24 & 25 of the Constitution inasmuch as the Petitioners cannot be coerced or compelled to sell their property at depressed price below the prevailing market price, particularly, when the Petitioners had a lawful right and legitimate expectation to realize adequate compensation for their wheat stocks not less than the MSP of wheat fixed in the Wheat Policy. 12.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners vociferously contended that the Government cannot approbate and reprobate in the same breath by first proceeding to deregulate the wheat sector asking the private sector to buy and store wheat and later, resort to coercive regulations by confiscating their stocks and compelling them to sell at distressed price to other private actors. Learned counsels strongly refuted the allegations that the Petitioners are hoarders and submitted that if the Government is bent upon to arbitrarily confiscate wheat from the Petitioners, they are ready to sell the same to the Government but only against adequate and due compensation which should not be less than Rs. 3,900 / 40 Kg equal to the MSP of wheat fixed by the Government of the Punjab under the Wheat Policy as approved by the Provincial Cabinet. It was broadly stated at bar that the current wheat price within the private sector ranges from Rs. 3,500 to Rs. 3,800 / 40 Kg at different locations in the Province of the Punjab but after issuance of the impugned Notification, the Government is taking coercive measures against the Petitioners and other stakeholders by confiscating their stocks at Rs. 3,000 / 40 Kg and supplying it to flour mills of their own choice to artificially keep the price of roti at fixed price to gain political milage, thereby, providing subsidy at the cost and expense of the Petitioners and other stakeholders. 13.
It was apprised that impugned actions of the Government are inherently detrimental to achieve the objective of deregulated wheat sector. The Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad has warned that the present model of partial deregulation, whereby, the state withdraws from procurement but retains price control or issues ad hoc price directives, creates market distortions and transfers the burden of price suppression to farmers and stakeholders to their detriment which negatively impacts their incomes. Independent market reporting institutions have also opined that while the Government signals a move to liberalize wheat markets and rely more on private sector procurement, multiple bans on free movement of the commodity within and outside the province and the country are leading to uncertainties which hamper predictable market functioning and highlight the need for a reasoned transitional policy. Therefore, the imposed sale price which is even less than the cost incurred by the Petitioners in growing, procuring and stocking wheat is unfair and unreasonable, as such, not sustainable. 14. Accordingly, the Petitioners prayed that the impugned Notification be set aside being illegal, unlawful, void and ultra vires to the Constitution and law. Consequently, the Petitioners may be held entitled to sell their wheat stocks at least at the Government notified MSP of wheat at Rs. 3,900 / 40 Kg as stipulated in the Wheat Policy. In the event of continued coercive measures, the Respondents may be directed to procure wheat of the Petitioners at the aforesaid price and pay fair compensation for any loss suffered in the interest of justice and fair play. It is also prayed that the Respondents be restrained from ceasing, confiscating, removing, transporting, dispossessing and compelling to sell wheat stocks at the arbitrarily fixed price or from adopting any other coercive measures against the person or property of the Petitioners. 15.
Learned Provincial Law Officer submitted that the Petitions are not maintainable on multiple scores. The Petitions relate to price mechanism and regulation of commercial and policy matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the executive and as such, are immune from judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution. The principle was emphasized in Order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled, Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Industries and Production v. Hamza Sugar Mills Limited, etc. in PLD 2021 SC 806. The Petitions are also incompetent since an earlier Petition praying for wheat procurement by revising the MSP of wheat has been dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 24.04.2024 passed in case titled, Mazhar Siddique Cheema v. Government of the Punjab, etc. in W. P. No. 24821 / 2024. Further, the impugned Notification was issued under the Price Control Act, Section 12 whereof, provides for alternate remedy of appeal which has not been availed by the Petitioners. This is especially so when earlier notification dated 06.07.2024 regarding fixation of indigenous price of wheat has not been assailed in the Petitions. Moreover, Section 18 of the Price Control Act expressly states that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against Provincial Controller General or any other officer authorized by him or Controller of Prices and Supplies for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of any order made under the Price Control Act. Hence, the titled and connected Petitions being incompetent and non-maintainable, are liable to be dismissed. 16.
On merits, he submitted that the impugned Notification has been issued in consonance with law, particularly, when this Court vide Order dated 02.06.2020 passed in case titled, Dewan Amlak Ahmad v. Government of Punjab
in W. P. No. 21729 / 2010 has held that reasonable restrictions can be imposed upon any business in the larger public interest under Article 18 of the Constitution. As such, the impugned Notification has been issued in the larger public interest which preempts private and individual interests in order to prevent artificial price hike and illegal profiteering of wheat. He explained that the prices of essential commodities were initially regulated under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 (the Hoarding Act ) which is a federal enactment but after promulgation of the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010, the matter fell within the provincial legislative competence which was aptly held by learned Division Bench of this Court in Hamza Sugar Mills case decided vide Judgment dated 02.10.2023 in ICA No. 61692 / 2021 reported as PLD 2023 Lah. 736 . It has been unequivocally declared therein that price fixation of essential commodities is within the Provincial legislative competency and the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab can pass an appropriate legislation, whereafter, the Price Control Act was passed. 17.
He further argued that in an open market, prices are controlled by ensuring free competition, however, at the same time, the Government always keeps a check on any non-competitive behavior, such as, cartelization, hoarding and illegal profiteering. As such, the Government is empowered to impose restrictions to control prices of essential commodities for the wellbeing of the consumers. Accordingly, the Price Control Act was promulgated with the objective to control prices of essential commodities…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.