Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Malik Javid Iqbal Wains), officially reported as 2026 LHC 3454. In this matter between the Petitioner and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Malik Javid Iqbal Wains) DECISION DATE: 10-03-2026 TAGLINE: Accordingly, it is held that the instant Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is maintainable against the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Adjudicator in exercise of jurisdiction vested under paragraph 37 of the Constitution of the Pakistan Cricket Board. Since the authority exercised by the learned Adjudicator emanates from and is founded upon a statutory constitutional framework, the impugned decision is amenable to judicial review in the exercise of this Court's constitutional jurisdiction. CASE DETAILS: Election 37823/25 ============================================================ Stereo HCJDA 38. JUDGMENT SHEET LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Writ Petition No.37823 of 2025

Shakil Ahmed Sheikh

Vs. Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) through Chief Operating Officer (COO) Gaddafi Stadium, Lahore, etc.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 10.03.2026

Petitioner by: M/s Taffazul Haider Rizvi, Haider Ali Khan and Beenish Sikandar, Advocates.

Respondents No.1 & 2 /PCB by: M/s Ch. Muhammad Usman, Ehtasham Mukhtar, Rida Hosain and Wajid Maqsood, Advocates. Respondents No.4, 5 & 6 by: Mr. Muhammad Hassan Malik, Advocate. Respondent No.7/Federation of Pakistan by: Mr. Khalid Nawaz Ghumman, Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan.

MALIK JAVID IQBAL WAINS, J. Through the instant Constitutional Petition filed under Article 19 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the legality and vires of (i) Order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the Independent Adjudicator, Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), Lahore (Respondents No.3), and (ii) lette r dated 28.05.2025 issued by the Chief Operating Officer, Pakistan Cricket Board (Respondent No.1). It is asserted that by virtue of the aforesaid impugned order and consequential letter, the petitioner has been unlawfully restrained from performing his of ficial functions and managing the affairs of the Zonal and Regional Cricket Associations, Islamabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the elected President of the Regional Cricket Association (RCA), Islamabad and asserts that he has been associated with the promotion of cricket in Pakistan for several decades. It is stated that after repeal of the PCB Constitution, 2019 W.P.No.37823 of 2025 2

through notification dated 22.12.2022, the erstwhile PCB Constitution, 2014 was restored and a Management C ommittee was constituted by the Federal Government to manage the affairs of the PCB, of which the petitioner was also appointed a member. Thereafter, scrutiny of cricket clubs and District Cricket Associations was undertaken and elections of various Distri ct Cricket Associations and Zonal Cricket Associations were conducted under the supervision of the Election Commissioner, PCB. In this process, elections of the Zonal Cricket Associations of Islamabad were held and, since only one candidate contested again st each post, the concerned office bearers were declared elected unopposed through notifications dated 16.03.2023 and 17.03.2023. Subsequently, election schedule for the RCA, Islamabad was issued on 17.03.2023 and the petitioner, being the sole candidate, was elected unopposed as President of RCA, Islamabad through notification dated 24.03.2023. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that certain cricket clubs challenged the election process before the Islamabad High Court through different writ petitions. In those proceedings, interim orders were passed and eventually the matters relating to elections of Zonal and Regional Cricket Associations were referred to the Adjudicator in terms of the PCB Constitution through order dated 13.05.2024. The petiti oner also filed an application under Section 12(2) CPC alleging that earlier proceedings before the Islamabad High Court had been initiated through concealment of material facts, however, through the aforesaid order the pending petitions and applications w ere converted into representations to be decided by the Adjudicator of PCB within a period of two months. 4. According to the petitioner, the proceedings before the Adjudicator were conducted in a questionable manner and without proper consideration of the petitioner‟s stance, culminating in the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 whereby the election process was interfered with and the petitioner‟s position as elected office bearer was adversely affected. 5. Consequent upon the said order, respondent No.1 is sued a letter dated 28.05.2025 restraining the petitioner and other elected office bearers from performing their functions in relation to the affairs of the Zonal and W.P.No.37823 of 2025 3

Regional Cricket Associations, Islamabad. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of the Adjudicator and the consequential restraining letter, the petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the PCB is a statutory body functioning under the Sports (Development and C ontrol) Ordinance, 1962 and the Constitution framed thereunder, therefore, its actions are amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. Further argues that after the change in the Federal Government, the PCB Constitution, 2019 was repealed through notification dated 22.12.2022 and the erstwhile PCB Constitution, 2014 was restored. Consequently, the structure of District Cricket Associations and Regional Cricket Associations stood revived and elections were required to be conducted in accordance with the so restored constitutional framework. Simultaneously, the Federal Government constituted a Management Committee (MC) to manage the affairs of PCB with full executive powers and the petitioner was also appoin ted a member of the said Management Committee. 7. It is maintained that after restoration of the 2014 Constitution, PCB initiated the scrutiny process of cricket clubs and associations across Pakistan and subsequently elections were held in about one hund red District Cricket Associations. Thereafter, the Election Commissioner, PCB issued the election schedule for the Zonal Cricket Associations of Islamabad along with the voters‟ list comprising East Zone, West Zone, North Zone, Central Zone Islamabad and G ilgit-Baltistan Cricket Association. According to learned counsel, the club of respondent No.4 , i.e. Junoon Cricket Club, was not included in the voters‟ list as it had been declared inactive. The said respondents challenged the status before the Election Commissioner through an appeal which still remains pending adjudication. 8. Further asserts that the proceedings before the Adjudicator were initially taken up, who later recused himself upon objections raised by certain respondents, whereafter the prese nt Adjudicator assumed jurisdiction. It is argued that the Adjudicator conducted the proceedings in a questionable manner and exhibited bias and predisposition against the petitioner. W.P.No.37823 of 2025 4

According to the petitioner, despite his request seeking recusal of the Adjudicator and an application submitted to the Chairman PCB for his removal, the request was declined without providing any opportunity of hearing. 9. Learned counsel contends that the restraining letter dated 28.05.2025 issued by respondent No.1 was wit hout lawful authority as such action could only have been taken by the Election Commissioner PCB, if unavoidable at all. It is also argued that the proceedings before the Adjudicator were conducted in a hasty manner without recording evidence, despite the fact that the Islamabad High Court had specifically observed that the controversy required proper evidentiary determination before the Adjudicator. The impugned order, therefore, is alleged to be based on presumptions and conjectures and in violation of t he principles of natural justice. 10. It is also argued that the reason assigned by the Adjudicator regarding alleged conflict of interest of the petitioner on account of his membership of the Management Committee is misconceived and without legal basis. According to learned counsel, the notification constituting the Management Committee did not impose any restriction on its members for contesting elections. Furthermore, two other members of the Management Committee also contested elections of their respective RCAs and were elected unopposed without any objection being raised. The action against the petitioner alone is therefore discriminatory and reflective of bias. 11. Learned counsel further contends that the appeal filed by respondent No.4 regarding it s status as an inactive club remains pending before the Election Commissioner, therefore, the said respondent had no lawful authority to challenge the election process or disturb a validly conducted election. The voters list for the election of RCA Islamabad election was complete and valid and the petitioner was elected in accordance with the PCB Constitution, 2014 and the Election Regulations, 2015. Reliance has been placed upon the following precedents i.e. Salahuddin and others vs. Frontier Sugar Mills a nd Distillery Ltd. (PLD 1975 SC 244) , Muhammad Yousaf vs. Province of Sindh and others (2024 SCMR 1689), Ayaz and others W.P.No.37823 of 2025 5

vs. Mustafa Saeed and others (2025 SCMR 216) , Commissioner Inland Revenue, Karachi v. Pakistan Beverages Limited (2018 SCMR 1544) , Muhammad Siddique Baloch vs. Jehangir Khan Tareen and others (PLD 2016 SC 97). 12. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 submits at the outset that the instant constitutional petition is not maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution as the relief sought by the petitioner relates to enforcement of rules and regulations of the PCB, which are non -statutory in nature. It is argued that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has already held that the rules governing the affairs of PCB do not have statutory force and therefore cannot be enforced through constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, any alleged violation of such internal regulations does not provide a valid ground for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 13. It is further contended that the Superior Courts in multiple judgments have consistently held that matters arising out of non -statutory rules or internal regulations of an organization are not amenable to constitutional jurisdiction. Learned counsel submits that the pe titioner in fact seeks enforcement of the PCB Election Regulations, 2015, which are purely internal rules framed for the management of the affairs of the Board and do not possess statutory character. In view of this settled legal position, the instant writ petition is incompetent and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 14. Learned counsel next argues that the present dispute essentially involves serious factual controversies, which cannot be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction. According to him, the issues raised by the petitioner require detailed factual inquiry and examination of evidence, which can only be undertaken by a court of plenary jurisdiction. The constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 is limited in scope and is not meant for resolving disputed questions of fact. Therefore, the petitioner, if aggrieved, has an alternate remedy to seek redress before the appropriate forum through ordinary civil proceedings. W.P.No.37823 of 2025 6

15. Further maintains that the allegations levele d by the petitioner regarding bias or unfairness on the part of the Adjudicator are wholly baseless and have been categorically denied. It is argued that the Adjudicator concerned is a former Judge of this Hon‟ble Court and there exists no material whatsoe ver to doubt the fairness or integrity of the adjudicatory process undertaken by him. Mere allegations or assertions of bias, without any tangible evidence, are insufficient to disqualify a decision -maker or to invalidate the proceedings conducted by him. 16. It is also contended that no conspiracy exists to remove the petitioner from his position, and the entire process was conducted in accordance with the applicable rules. Learned counsel maintains that the adjudicatory proceedings were carried out lawfu lly and fairly and that the impugned order cannot be challenged merely on speculative allegations. 17. Learned counsel further maintains that the parties themselves had mutually agreed that formal recording of evidence was not necessary for the adjudication of the dispute before the Adjudicator. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot now challenge the proceedings on the ground that evidence was not recorded. Moreover, when a matter involves factual disputes requiring evidentiary examination, the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked . Reliance has been placed upon the following precedents: Ministry of Inter Provincial Coordination etc. vs. Arbab Altaf Hussain etc. (2014 SCMR 1573) , Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. v s. Muhammad Samiullah (2021 SCMR 998) , Syed Nazir Gillani vs. Pakistan Red Crescent Society (2014 SCMR 982), Muhammad Ashraf vs. United Bank Limited (2015 SCMR 911), Muhammad Zaman and others vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance (2017 SCMR 571) , Super Star Cricket Club vs. Federation of Pakistan (W.P. No.168/2019) , Lahore High Court), Imran Rafique vs. Pakistan Cricket Board (W.P. No.235625/2018) , Kaiser Garh Cricket Club v s. Pakistan Cricket Board, Lahore (W.P. No.29463/2023), Munda Eleven Cricket Club vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2017 Lahore 802), Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs. Intizar Ali and others (2022 SCMR 472), Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani vs. Pakistan Bar Council (2021 SCMR 425), Pakistan WAPDA Employees Pegham Union W.P.No.37823 of 2025 7

vs. Member, National Industrial Relations Commission (2014 SCMR 1676) , Amir Jamal and others vs. Malik Zahoor and others (2011 SCMR 1023), Ch. Azhar Ali vs. Punjab Public Service Commission (PLD 2004 SC 4) , The President vs. Mr. Justice Shaukat Ali (PLD 1971 SC 585) , Ahmad Developers vs. Muhammad Saleh and others (2010 SCMR 1057), Fateh Yarn Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue (2021 SCMR 1133). 18. Learned counsel for respondents No.4, 5, and 6 submits that the present petition is merely an attempt by the petitioner to revive and legitimize an electoral process which has already been examined in detail and set aside by the Learned Independent Adjudicator of the PCB after due proceedings. It is contended that the real controversy before this Court is not whether the petitioner was elected unopposed, but whether the elections themselves were conducted through a lawfully prepared voters‟ list in accordance with the governing regulations. According to learned counsel, the Adjudicator, after examining the record and h earing all parties, rightly concluded that the elections of the Zonal and Regional Cricket Associations of Islamabad held in March 2023 were tainted with serious irregularities including manipulation of the voters‟ list, unlawful alteration of club status, violation of the prescribed scrutiny framework and conflict of interest on the part of the petitioner. 19. Learned counsel further argues that the record clearly demonstrates that the voters‟ list used for the elections was unlawfully manipulated, whereby historically recognized voter clubs such as Junoon Cricket Club and Muslim Cricket Club were removed, while several clubs which had never previously enjoyed voter status were inserted into the electoral list. In addition, various clubs were arbitraril y shifted between different zones without any regulatory process, thereby altering the list of eligible voters. It is also submitted that the elections were conducted in violation of the mandatory scrutiny requirements under the PCB Election Regulations, 2 015, as the last lawful scrutiny of clubs had taken place in 2010 and no proper scrutiny was conducted for more than thirteen years. Such manipulation of the voters‟ list and artificial restructuring of electoral zones, according to learned counsel, strikes at the root of the electoral process and renders the elections legally unsustainable. W.P.No.37823 of 2025 8

20. . It is further contended that the petitioner himself was a member of the PCB Management Committee, a body exercising executive authority over the affairs of the PCB, yet he simultaneously contested the election for the office of President of the Regiona l Cricket Association Islamabad, which clearly constitutes a conflict of interest and violates the principles embodied in the PCB Code of Ethics. Learned counsel maintains that the Adjudicator‟s findings regarding manipulation of the voters‟ list used for the election are based on record evidence and reflect the settled principle that the purity and integrity of electoral processes must be preserved; therefore, the impugned decision represents a lawful correction of a fundamentally compromised election and warrants no interference by this Court . Reliance has been placed upon the case laws titled Director Housing, A.G’s Branch Rawalpindi vs. M/s Makhdum Consultants Engineers and Architects (1997 SCMR 988) , Sughra Bibi vs. District and Sessions Judge, Lahore (2018 CLC Note 38), Ali Ahmed vs. Ghulam Mustafa (2022 MLD 908), Mir Shams-ud-Din vs. Mir Zia-ud-Din (2025 CLC 130) & Muhammad Siddique Baloch v s. Jehangir Khan Tareen (PLD 2016 SC 97). 21. Arguments heard. Record perused. 22. From the arguments advanced and the record available, the following questions arise for determination: i. Whether the instant constitutional petition is maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 ? ii. Whether the proceedings conducted before the Independent Adjudicator (hereinafter “Adjudicator”) and the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 suffer from illegality, violation of due process and prescribed procedure, or lack of reasoning? 23. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents -PCB has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, contending that the Constitution of the Pakistan Cricket Board and its regulations are non -statutory in nature and, therefore, matters arising therefrom are not amenable to the constitutional ju risdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, and have placed reliance mainly on MUNDA ELEVEN CRICKET CLUB vs. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 4 others (PLD 2017 Lahore 802) . To properly resolve this objection, it is W.P.No.37823 of 2025 9

necessary to examine the s tatutory foundations of the PCB and the legal character of its regulations. 24. The PCB is constituted and functions under the Sports (Development and Control) Ordinance, 1962 (XVI of 1962) (hereinafter “Ordinance”). Under Section 3 of the said Ordinance, the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute a Board for the control of sports in Pakistan. Section 4 provides that the name, constitution, powers, and functions of PCB shall be such as may be determined by the Central G overnment, and Section 5 confers upon PCB the power to make rules and regulations for carrying its objects into effect. For a ready reference, the aforesaid provisions are reproduced hereunder:- 3. Establishment of the Board. – (1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Ordinance, the Central Government may, for the purpose of promoting and developing uniform standards of competition in sports in Pakistan comparable to the standards prevailing internationally and regulating and controlling sports in Pakistan on a national basis, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute1 , one or more boards for the control of Sports in Pakistan. (2) A Board shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, ho ld and dispose of property, both movable and immovable. 4. Name, Constitution, Powers and functions of a Board. – The name, Constitution, powers and functions of a Board shall be such as may be determined2 by the Central Government. 5. Exclusive right to make Rules for the development, control and uniformity of Sports throughout Pakistan. – A Board may make rules and regulations for carrying its objects into effect. The PCB Constitution, 2014, which is the constitution restored and operative at the relevant time, was published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette of Pakistan on 30.08.2014. The PCB Election Regulations, 2015 were thereafter framed by the Pakistan Cricket Board in pursuance of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the said Ordinance. 25. The question whether the Constitution of PCB, 2014 and its regulations possess a statutory character sufficient to attract the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is no longer res integra. Learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court (Mingora Bench), while distinguishing the principle held in Munda Eleven supra, in the case of AL-FATAH CRICKET CLUB W.P.No.37823 of 2025 10

through President vs. PAKISTAN CRICKET BOARD through Chairman and 4 others (2018 CLC 1427 ), addressed and resolved the same controversy. The learned Bench repelle d the objection regarding maintainability and held that the petition was maintainable, observing that the PCB is a person performing functions under the control of the Federal Government and that the regulations, having been duly published in the official Gazette after approval of the Federal Government, possess statutory character. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinafter: - “7. Learned counsel for the respondents further referred to the status of the present petitioner as non statuto ry and therefore strongly resisted maintainability of the instant writ petitions. Reliance is placed on 2013 SCMR 314 and an unreported judgment of Lahore High Court passed in W.P No. 59837 of 2017 decided on 23.8.2017. 8. In order to regulate the developm ent and control of sports in Pakistan, an Ordinance known as Sports (Development and Control) Ordinance, 1962 (XVI of 1962), was promulgated on 02.05.1962. Under section 3 thereof the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette constitut e a Board for the control of sports in Pakistan. Under section 4, the name, constitution, powers and functions of a board shall be such as may determine by the Central Government and under section 5, a board may make rules and regulations for carrying its objects into effect. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy as involved in instant writ petition, it would be necessary to consider the relevant provision of Constitution of Pakistan Cricket Board published in the Gazette of Pakistan, Extra on 30.08.2014, wherein an “ACTIVE” club is defined in section 2 (ii), means a cricket club which; (a) has adopted the model constitution as formulated by the board of Governors within a period of three months from the date of its communication; (b) has not less than s ixteen playing members registered with the District Cricket Association, or as the case may be, zonal cricket Association to which it is affiliated and verified by the scrutiny committee of the board; (c) has formulated by laws for regulating business and the conduct of its members; (d) participates in every calendar year in at least two tournaments organized by the District Cricket Association to which it is affiliated or two others tournaments approved or recognized by the Board. (e) does not belong to any service organization or department; (f) has the use of a pitch where net practice is regularly held, subject to the satisfaction of the board. Explanation: For the purpose of this clause, not more than three cricket clubs may use the same pitch and nets; and g) is not a defaulter of the dues of the concerned District Cricket Association; W.P.No.37823 of 2025 11

10. Under Rule (xxix) the rules is defined to means the rules made by the Board under section 5 of the Sports (Development and Control) Ordinance, 1962 (XVI of 1962). Under para 3 with the heading Pakistan Cricket Board, it is provided that a board to be known as the Pakistan Cricket Board is constituted which shall manage and regulate subject to and in accordance with this constitution by the Chairman, the Board of Govern ors and the general body, the affairs of the board. Under para 3(2) the Board shall be a body corporate and has been given even the status and character as required for the body corporate. Under para 3(3) the Board shall be the governing body of Pakistan Cricket and its primary aim shall be to promote the game of cricket in Pakistan. Under para 4 the body, the objects, powers and functions of the Board have been laid down and includes promotion, develop, supervise and maintain general control on all forms o f domestic and international cricket. Under para 16, the composition of…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Malik Javid Iqbal Wains)
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant