SHAHID KARIM, J.---This petition under Article 199 .of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenges the constitutionality of section 126(4) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 and the consequent Circular No,19 of 2010 dated 30.07.2010 issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP). However, primarily the challenge is to subsection (4) of section 126 of the Ordinance, 2000. This order shall also decide the connected petition W.P. No,18734 of 2010 which raises a common question of law.
2. During the course of the arguments today, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the promulgation of Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act, 2013 by which it was decided to bring about institutional reforms for standardizing and harmonizing the laws relating to institution of Federal Ombudsmen and the matters ancillary thereto. By the Act, 2013 certain amendments were made in the "relevant legislation" which has been defined by section 2(c) of the Act, 2013 to include the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 as well. In section 17 of the Act, 2013, subsection (2) provides as follows: 2) The remuneration payable to the Ombudsman and the administrative expenses of the office shall be an expenditure charged upon Federal Consolidated Fund."
3. The above provision in the opinion of the learned counsel for the petitioner takes care of the challenge made in the constitutional petitions. A It may be recalled that the precise attack in the petitions was to the incurring of costs of the secretariat and its sharing by the insurance company in such proportion as may be determined by the Commission. By section 17(2) of the Act, 2013 the expenses shall be the expenditure charged upon the Federal Consolidated Fund and so the expenses shall not be required to be shared by the insurance companies. Section 24 of the Act, 2013 gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the Act over any other law for the time being in force. Further, by subsection (2) of section 24 in case of conflict between the provisions of the Act, 2013 and the relevant legislation, the provisions of the Act, 2013 shall prevail. Therefore, the petitioners have no cause of action in these petitions any more after the promulgation of the Act, 2013 and in view of the changed position of the law these petitions have become in infructuous and are disposed of.