LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has dismissed a writ petition filed by the former Member Operations (Inland Revenue) of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), challenging the actions of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in connection with an alleged fraudulent tax refunds scam at the Large Taxpayer Office (LTO), Lahore.
The decision was announced during the hearing of consolidated writ petitions filed by the FBR, which sought to challenge the FIA’s inquiry, issuance of notices, and a raid conducted at the LTO, Lahore. The Court held that despite previously occupying a senior policymaking and supervisory position within the FBR, the former Member Inland Revenue (Operations) did not qualify as an “aggrieved person” under Article 199 of the Constitution.
In its detailed observations, the LHC drew a clear distinction between institutional interests and personal legal injury. The Court noted that no notice had been issued to the petitioner in his personal capacity, nor had any coercive or adverse action been taken against him individually. As such, the petition lacked the necessary legal standing (locus standi) required to invoke the Court’s constitutional jurisdiction.
The Court further observed that the petition was representative in nature and substantially identical to an earlier petition filed by the FBR itself, which had already been declared an inter-departmental dispute. Such disputes, the LHC reiterated, are required to be resolved internally in accordance with the Rules of Business, 1973, rather than through constitutional litigation.
Commenting on the ruling, Chairman of the LTBA Public Interest Litigation Committee, Waheed Shahzad Butt, told Business Recorder that the dismissal of the petition for want of locus standi sent a clear and unequivocal message. He stated that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to express supervisory authority, institutional unease, or bureaucratic dissatisfaction.
The LHC, he noted, reaffirmed that judicial review is intended to provide relief against actual and personal legal injury, not to adjudicate administrative disagreements or turf battles between state institutions. According to Butt, while the dismissal may appear technical at first glance, it carries significant jurisprudential weight.
He added that the ruling reinforces the principle that holding a senior public office does not automatically confer legal standing. Institutional disputes, he emphasized, must generally be addressed through established constitutional and executive mechanisms, rather than by individual office-holders approaching the courts in their personal capacity.
The LHC’s decision, according to the LTBA Public Interest Litigation Committee, not only safeguards the sanctity of taxpayer confidentiality but also clarifies the constitutional limits on who may represent an institution before the courts. The judgment is being viewed as a defining precedent for governance, accountability, and the separation of powers in Pakistan.
