Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Background of the Case
- Key Legal Issues
- Maintainability of Appeal
- Opportunity of Hearing
- Public Sector Company Determination
- Appellant’s Stance
- Observations by the Bench
- Final Decision
- Conclusion
- Legal Services Offered
Introduction
The Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund (PPAF) filed an appeal against the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan’s (SECP) decision. SECP had refused to approve PPAF’s Chief Executive appointment. This article explains the case and its outcome.
Background of the Case
PPAF applied to SECP on September 7, 2021, to approve the appointment of its Chief Executive. However, SECP rejected the application through a letter dated September 8, 2021.
To challenge SECP’s decision, PPAF pursued two legal actions:
- First, it filed Writ Petition No. 3928/2021 in the Islamabad High Court. The court dismissed the petition on December 9, 2022, advising PPAF to file an appeal under Section 33 of the SECP Act.
- Later, it filed Writ Petition No. 322/2023 to challenge SECP’s refusal to register the appeal. This petition is still pending.
Key Legal Issues
Maintainability of Appeal
SECP raised concerns about the appeal’s validity. Specifically, SECP argued that PPAF challenged a letter, not a formal order.
Opportunity of Hearing
Moreover, PPAF claimed that SECP rejected the application without giving it a chance to present its case.
Public Sector Company Determination
Additionally, SECP treated PPAF as a public sector company under the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013. According to PPAF, SECP exceeded its authority by applying these rules. PPAF emphasized that its application sought approval only under Regulation 7 of the Associations with Charitable and Not-for-Profit Objects Regulations, 2018.
Appellant’s Stance
PPAF’s legal counsel presented two main arguments:
- First, the Islamabad High Court had already resolved the maintainability issue.
- Second, SECP should hear all parties involved and decide the matter fairly.
Observations by the Bench
The Bench carefully reviewed the case and made several observations:
- Firstly, the case involved significant interests of government ministries.
- Secondly, SECP’s refusal letter did not qualify as an official order under the law.
Final Decision
Ultimately, the Bench referred the case to the Divisional Head/Executive Director, Licensing and Registration Division. The Division must:
- Hear all parties involved.
- Decide the matter through a detailed speaking order, following the law.
In conclusion, the Bench disposed of the appeal.
Conclusion
This case underscores the importance of fairness in regulatory decisions. It also highlights the need for accurate classification of companies under corporate governance rules.
Legal Services Offered
I, Muhammad Amin, Advocate, offer expert legal services for corporate, regulatory, and property disputes in Peshawar. If you require professional legal advice, feel free to contact me.
Contact Number: 0313 9708019