Monal restaurant assailed for ‘trespassing’ in Margalla Hills National Park

ISLAMABAD: In a damning observation, the Supreme Court on Tuesday dubbed the status of Luqman Ali Afzal, owner of the Monal Group of Companies, no better than that of a trespasser, saying he had no legal right to continue with the possession of the land in the Margalla Hills National Park (MHNP).
Likewise, La Montana and Gloria Jeans were in total disregard of the provisions of the Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979, observed Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa in a 13-page order.
Headed by CJP, a three-judge bench also consisting of Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan rejected a set of review petitions moved by the Monal Group of Companies, the Capital View Point Restaurant (La Montana), Sunshine Heights (Pvt) Ltd and by retired brigadier Falak Naz Bangash of the defence ministry.
On Aug 21, the Supreme Court in its detailed order had directed the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board (IWMB) to take possession of restaurants namely Monal, La Montana and Gloria Jeans and obligated the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and the police to assist the wildlife board.
The operators of these restaurants and those who permitted them to operate disregarded the integrity of the national park, ravaged its flora, and displaced and disturbed the endemic bird and animal life, the judgement regretted. An astronomical environmental cost was also borne by the public and will continue to be borne by future generations, the CJP lamented.

The utter disdain and contempt for the laws of Pakistan and the degradation/destruction of the national park was made possible by the complicity of those who were required to protect, preserve and conserve it, the judgement said, adding that these stakeholders instead served moneyed interests.
Not only adverse observations were made in the judgement, but the Supreme Court also took notice of an attempt to resile on the part of the Monal group of its earlier undertakings to vacate the premises within three months that was given in the presence of respective counsel.
Making a mockery of solemn undertakings and rendering them meaningless cannot be permitted, the order said, adding those doing so must suffer the consequences.
In view of alleged contemptuous behaviour and misconceived contentions, the court said it was constrained to review the earlier order to delete the observation that had asked the CDA to give preference to these restaurants in the award of leases.
“The chairman CDA present in court states that he will designate an officer to consider the request and if there are premises/land available for this purpose, and if the law permits, preference will be given to those who are voluntarily vacating restaurants from within the national park,” the earlier order had stated.
Referring to the review petition by Sunshine Heights (Pvt) Limited, the Supreme Court said the purported allotment to the entity 28 years ago was not in accordance with the law, the judgement said, adding the requisite payment was also not made by the company.
The allotment letter to the company stated that the allotment was for a period of 33 years and construction had to be raised within three years, but no construction was raised even after 28 years.
The company’s claim on the basis of the allotment letter was not sustainable, the order said, adding in any event the law does not permit the construction of a restaurant, which the company intends to construct, in the protected area of the national park.
About the Capital View Point Restaurant, the apex court observed that the firm and its partners were in illegal possession of the land situated in the MHNP and illegally running restaurants (La Montana and Gloria Jeans), which they could only have done with the help of those in power.
‘Untenable excuses’
About defence ministry’s legal advisor Falak Naz, the Supreme Court said the officer made untenable excuses for the officers of the directorate who were not complying with the order of this court directing the production of the file which would have revealed on whose instructions the purported lease agreement in favour of Luqman Ali Afzal was executed.

By his own actions, Falak Naz demonstrated that his loyalty was not with the defence ministry and the federal government which had employed him.
Falak Naz also remained intransigent in his understanding that the directorate was not a separate legal entity but was a component of the ministry which in turn was a part of the federal government.
Published in Dawn, September 11th, 2024