ISLAMABAD – Islamabad High Court dismissed BNP (Private) Limited’s petition challenging cancellation of the lease for One Constitution Avenue project, upholding the Capital Development Authority’s (CDA) decision.
The court ruled that the cancellation was lawful and in line with conditions previously set under Supreme Court directions. It mentioned that the petitioner failed to meet financial obligations, including the non-payment of Rs 2.916 billion for the 2022 installment, and had not complied with the terms of the court-approved revival arrangement.
The court also dismissed the execution petition and disposed of related applications filed by third-party investors, advising them to seek remedies before the appropriate forums.
The ruling, announced in open court by Chief Justice, emphasized that the petitioner failed to comply with financial obligations tied to a court-sanctioned revival plan. The Court observed that the petitioner’s claims regarding notice period calculations were “unsubstantiated and insufficient” to outweigh what it described as a “substantial breach of a Court-mandated obligation.”
The judgment underscores that the petitioner no longer retained an “existing right” enforceable under writ jurisdiction due to its inability to meet the financial conditions it had itself undertaken. The Court further noted that equitable relief could not be extended to a developer that had “squandered a court-granted lifeline” at the expense of public interest and state revenue.
While exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, the Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in administrative matters. It outlined three guiding principles, illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety, as the basis for such review. The Court concluded that the CDA’s actions did not suffer from any of these defects.
It also clarified that disputed questions of fact could not be examined in writ proceedings, reinforcing the procedural boundaries of constitutional jurisdiction.
Addressing petitions filed by third parties claiming interests through sub-leases issued by the petitioner, the Court held that such parties “have to sink or sail with the petitioner.” Their claim of being bona fide purchasers for value without notice was deemed unsuitable for determination under writ jurisdiction, as it would require evidentiary examination.
Court advised that sub-lessees may seek remedies in courts of competent jurisdiction, either against the petitioner or otherwise. At the same time, it expressed hope that the CDA and affected third parties would make sincere efforts to reach mutually agreeable arrangements.
The Court also reviewed precedents cited by both the petitioner and third parties but found them inapplicable, noting that those judgments were based on materially different facts and circumstances.
The judgment was formally announced on April 30, 2026, and signed by the Chief Justice.
Islamabad’s One Constitution Avenue residents face midnight forced eviction after IHC ruling
