The Monal restaurant case returned to the legal spotlight on Thursday as the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) raised key questions over a previous Supreme Court verdict ordering the closure and demolition of the popular Islamabad eatery. The case has reopened debate on the judicial process, lease rights, and the handling of multiple cases in the original judgment.
The FCC heard a review petition in the case, in which the federal government supported the request to reconsider the earlier decision. The government’s stance added weight to arguments seeking fresh judicial review of the matter.
During the proceedings, the three-member bench, headed by Justice Hassan Rizvi, did not grant an immediate request to reopen the restaurant. Instead, the court focused on legal and procedural concerns linked to the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling.
The bench questioned how multiple pending cases were resolved through a single judgment. It also raised concerns about whether all parties had been properly heard before the decision was issued.
Legal Questions Take Center Stage
The FCC observed that some aspects of the dispute, including the lease renewal of Monal restaurant, were still pending before a civil court. The bench noted that related intra-court appeals involving other restaurants were also under review in the High Court.
Lawyers argued that the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling had disposed of multiple matters together, which they claimed created uncertainty about due process. They maintained that separate cases required individual consideration rather than a collective judgment.
Justice Hassan Rizvi questioned why certain legal arguments were not presented earlier before the Supreme Court. He further commented on earlier hearings, stressing the need to present full arguments at the proper stage.
The court further noted that judicial decisions cannot be set aside simply based on mutual agreement among parties. It emphasized that any review of a Supreme Court verdict requires strong legal justification and detailed reasoning.
The federal government’s counsel, Ahsan Bhoon, said all parties agreed to take the matter to civil court. However, the court clarified that consensus alone is not enough to alter a final judgment.
The bench reiterated that revising a Supreme Court decision is a serious legal matter. It requires proper judicial grounds rather than administrative or mutual consent between stakeholders.
The hearing was adjourned until the second week of July for further arguments and clarifications.
The Monal case has remained one of Islamabad’s most closely followed legal disputes. It involves questions around environmental regulations, lease agreements, and commercial activity in protected areas.
The latest FCC proceedings suggest that the legal battle is far from over. With the court seeking deeper clarity on earlier judgments, the case may continue to evolve in upcoming hearings.
The restaurant remains closed as experts watch the review petition.
