' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.-The above-noted three Constitutional Petitions were heard by the Full Bench in view of the orders passed by two different Benches of this Court at the time of their admission directing that these petitions may be laid before a Full Bench for hearing as the points involved therein were considered to be of great importance. In all these petitions the petitioners who are the Ex-Managing Director, Ex-Directors and the shareholders of the industrial undertaking previously known as General Iron and Steel Works Limited, Karachi, now known as Quality Steel Works Limited. (We will hereinafter refer in our order this industrial undertaking as "the Company" only for the sake of convenience) have challenged the taking over of the management of the Company and the acquisition of their shares under the provisions of Economic Reforms Order of 1972 (P.O. 1 of 1972) as unconstitutional, opposed to fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of 1973 and principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and mala fide. In the first instance only Petitions No, 624 and 625 of 1974 were filed by one Abdul Sattar Yousuf an Ex-Director of the Company challenging the taking over of the management of the Company under P. L. I of 1972 as unconsti tutional, in contravention of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of 1973 and mala fide. However, no particulars of mala fide were alleged in these petitions. Later on Petition No, 1290 of 1930 was filed almost after the lapse of a period of about six years from the filing of Petitions Nos. 624 and 625 of 1974 by 8 other persons (other thatn the Petitioner in Petitions Nos. 624 and 625 of 1974) who claimed themselves to be the Ex-Managing Director, Ex-Directors and Ex-Promotors of the Company and who allegedly held over 5l% of the total shareholdings of the company at the time of its taking over by the Government. In Petition No, 1290 of 1980 the vires of P.O. 1 of 1972, M.L.R-125, Notifications No, S.R.O. 64 (1)/72 and S.R.O. 65 (1)/72, dated 16th January, 1972 issued under the provisions of P.O. I of 1972 and all actions taken thereunder are challenged as contravening the provision of Constitution of 1973, beyond the scope of P.O. I of 1972 and mala fide. The particulars of mala fide on the part of Government in taking over the management of the Company are set forth in paragraph 11 of the petition. Besides it is also alleged that the action taken in respect of the Company violated the principles of natural justice and that it was not taken over in "public interest". These petitions are contested by the management of the Company as well as by the Government of Pakistan. We have heard Mr. A. K.
Brohi, for the petitioner, Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed for the management of the Company and Mr. Syed Inayatali, the Standing Counsel represented the Central Government. Mr. Muhamma d All Sayeed, the learned counsel for the Company raised serveral prelim inary objections in these petitions. However before considering the contentions raised by the parties I would like to state here first the facts which formed the background for filing of the above petitions. They are as follows :- ' Gen. Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan on 25th March, 1969 proclaimed Martial Law in the country and assumed powers as Chief Martial Law Administrator. Immediately on assumption of powers as Chief Martial Law Administrator he also entered upon the office of the President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and promulgated the Provisional Constitution Order of 1969. As a result of these steps the country was placed under a state of emergency, the Constitution of 1962 was abrogated and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of 1962 stood abrogated as a result of abrogation of Constitution as and from 26th March, 1969. Gen. Yahya Khan thereafter continued to govern the country in accordance with the Provisional Constitution Order of 1969 until the tragic event of December, 1971, when the country was dismembered and one of its parts known as "East Pakistan" was separated and emerged as an independent State of "Bangladesh". In the wake of these events of December, 1971 Gen. Yahya Khan, on 20th December, 1971 transferred powers in West Pakistan which alone them constituted the territory of Pakistan to Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the Chairman of the defunct-Peoples Party which was the majority party elected in the then Province of West Pakistan as a result of general elections which took place in the then Pakistan in the year 1971. For the purposes of transfer of power to Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Gen. Yahya Khan issued a proclamation on 20th December, 1971 which provided for relinquishment of the office of C. M. L. A.
And President of Pakistan by Gen. Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan and assumption of the same by Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto upon taking an oath by the latter before the former as provided in the schedule of the proclamation. As a result of the transfer of power by Gen. Yahya Khan, in favour of Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto as aforesaid the latter became the Chief Martial Law Administrator and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of Pakistan and also the President of Pakistan. Upon assumption of the office of Chief Martial Law Administrator and President of Pakistan Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in his above capacity issued the first Presidential Order known as Economic Reforms Order of 1972 (P.O. 1 of 1972) on 1st January, 1972 in exercise of his powers which he derived in pursuance of the proclamation of 25th day of March, 1969 read with the proclamation of 20th December, 1971 and the Provisional Constitution Order. Article 4 of P.O. 1 of 1972 provided that where the Central Government considered it necessary in the "public interest" so to do, it may by an order appoint a Managing Director in respect of an establishment pertaining to any of the categories of industries set out in the Schedule to the above Order and upon such appointment of Managing Director the administration of the affairs of that establishment was to stand vested in the Managing Director so appointed and any other person or authority exercising or having the right to exercise immediately before such appointment any power or function in relation to the management of the establishment ceased to exercise or have the right to exercise such power and function. In exercise of the above power under Article 4 of P.O. 1 of 1972, the Central Government on 16th January, 1972 issued notifications No, S.R.O. 64 (1)/72 and S.R.O. 65 (1)/72 in respect of the company. The first notification appointed one Mr. A. S. Siddiqui, Deputy General Manager, Pakistan Machine Tool Factory Landhi, Karachi, as the Managing Director of the Company while the second notification removed the Directors and the Managing Agents of the Company from the Board of Directors of the Company. As a result of the above notifications the petitioners were removed from their respective offices in the Company and its administration came to be vested with Mr. A. S. Siddiqui, who was appointed as aforesaid as the Managing Director of the Company. Thereafter on 4th April, 1972 the interim Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan was framed which was published in Gazette on 15th of April, 1972 and it came into effect from 21st April, 1972. Chapter I of the Constitution which related to fundamental rights contained Articles 7 to 26. Article 7 of Chapter I provided that any law or any customs or usage having the force of law which was inconsistent with the right conferred by Chapter 1 of the Interim Constitution shall be void to the extent of inconsistency with the fundamental rights. Clause (2) of Article 7 prohibited the State from enacting laws which took away or' abridged the fundamental rights conferred on a citizen and declares any law so made in contravention of the fundamental rights to the extent of repugnancy void. However, clause (3) of Article 7 exempted the laws specified in the 1st schedule to the Constitution from operation of Article 7. The Economic Reform Order, 1972 (P.O. 1 of 1972) was mentioned at serial No, 4 in the First Schedule to the Interim Constitution. On 15th September, 1973 after coming into force of the Interim Constitution, P.O. 1 of 1972 was amended by an Act of the Parliament known as Economic Reforms (Amendment) Act (LXIV of 1973) and several new provisions were added therein which amongst other declared the development under Federal control of the industries pertaining to any of the category set out to the First Schedule to the Order as expedient and in public interest. Powers were also conferred on the Federal Government by newly-added Article 7-B in the P.O. 1 of 1972, if it considers necessary in the public interest so to do, to acquire entire shares held in the Company by the sponsors and Directors of the previous management thereof, the family members of such sponsors and Directors and the Associated undertakings and Managing Agents which were the associated undertakings and managing agents of the Company at the time the Managing Director was appointed in respect thereof and the whole or a portion of the shares from all or any of the shareholders of such company and, as from the date of such order, the shares so acquired shall vest in the Federal Government. By another Article 7-C which was also added by Act LXIV of 1973, it was provided that where Federal Government acquired share of an undertaking in accordance with Article 7-B of P.O. 1 of 1972 it shall pay compensation therefor within 90 days of such acquisition. Further amendment in P.O. 1 of 1972 was introduced on 7th March, 1974 by Ordinance IV of 1974 which amended the Second Schedule which was added to P.O. 1 of 1972 by Act LXIV of 1973 and it also omitted the period of 90 days mentioned in Article 7-C of the P.O. 1 of 1972. It is not disputed before us that after amendment of P.
O. 7 of 1972 by Act LXIV of 1973, the Federal Government by order, dated 29th November, 1973, acquired some of the shares of the shareholders of the company including the petitioner and thereafter by further order dated 12th July, 1974 the said shares were transferred by the Federal Government to Federal Light Engineering Corporation Limited. Again 2,28,970 shares of the Company were transferred in favour of Investment Corporation of Pakistan later on. In this background Petitions Nos. 624/ 74 and 625/74 were filed by one of the Ex-Directors of the Company challenging the taking over of the management of the Company and acquisition of the shares of the petitioners on the ground that the action of the Central Government was taken in violation of the provisions of the Constitution and in derogation of the fundamental rights guaranteed thereunder. Subsequently another Constitutional Petition No, 1219/80 was filed by other 8 shareholders of the Company challenging the above action of the Federal Government in addition to the grounds urged in Petitions Nos. 624 and 625/74 on the plea that P.
0. 1 of 1972 is a mak fide piece of legislation and action taken thereunder was also mala fide.
Besides it was also contended that the action taken against the petitioner was opposed to the principle of natural justice.
' Mr. A. K. Brohi, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised following contentions before us :-
(1) That P.O. I of 1972 provided for taking over of the management of specified categories of industries which in effect amounted to compulsory acquisition of property. This power was neither available to Central Legislature under the Constitution of 1962 nor under the-Constitution of 1973 and as such P.O. 1 of 1972 was ultra vires the powers of Central Legislature.
(2) That P.O. 1 of 1972 was a mala fide legislation conceived in bad faith and promulgated for collateral purposes by an individual and as such the protection given to it under Interim Constitution of 1972 and Permanent Constitution of 1973 was of no avail in view of the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Shamimur Rehman v. Goverment of Pakistan (PLD 1980 Kar. 345). Alternatively, it is urged that the protection given to P.O. 1 of 1972 in the Interim and Permanent Constitution of 1972 and 1973 respectively was applicable only to the original Presidential Order as promulgated on 1st January, 1970. The subsequent amendments, therefore, made in the P.O. 1 of 1972 were not saved from being challenged in the Courts.
(3) That the Company did not fall within the category of Industries specified in the Schedule to P.O.
1 of 1972 and as such the action taken by the Central Government against it was wholly without jurisdiction.
(4) That the petitioners were entitled to hearing before taking over of the management of Company and the acquisition of their shares. Therefore the action of Central Government in taking over management of Company and acquiring the shares of petitioners without hearing them was wholly without jurisdiction.
' In reply to the above submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed, the learned counsel for the company contended that the vires of P.O. 1 of 1972 and subsequent amendments made therein cannot be challenged in Court in view of the protection given to it in the Constitution of 1973. The taking over of the management of Company under P.O. 1 f 1972, it is contended by the learned counsel, was only a step towards nationalization of the Company and it did not amount to acquisition of the property as contended by the petitioners and the subsequent acquisition of shares of petitioners by the Central Government only meant completion of the process of nationalization which commenced earlier by taking over the management of the company. The learned counsel referred to entry No, 3 in Part II of Federal Legislature List in the First Schedule to the Constitution of 1973 to show that Federal Government competently promulgated and amended P.O. 1 of 1972. The learned counsel also relied on Articles 8, 253 and 269 of the Permanent Constitution of 1973 in support of his submissions. In so far the contention of the petitioners that they were entitled to be heard before the taking over of the management of the Company and the acquisition of their shares is concerned, Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed contended that the determination of 'public interest' was a subjective determination by the Central Government and therefore it lay within its exclusive domain for which no hearing was necessary and in any case the provision of P.O. Of 1972 by necessary implication excluded the application of principles of audi alteram partem. In reply to the contention of petitioners that the Company did not fall within the purview of the categories of industries specified in P.O. 1 of 1972, Mr. Sayeed contended that the expression used in P.O. 1 of 1972 was not "Iron and Steel Industry" but it is "Iron and Steel Industries", which expression legitimately included the company which was engaged in the progress of re-rolling of steel, steel tower fabrication, bright bar shafting and cast iron foundry. In addition to the above submission made by Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed on merits, he also urged the following preliminary objections to the maintainability of these petitions :-
(1) That the order for taking over of the management of company under P.O. 1 of 1972 was made on 16th January, 1972 and shares were acquired on 29th November, 1973. Whereas Petitions Nos. 624 and 625 of 1974 were filed on 25th May, 1974 and the subsequent Petition No 1290 of 1980 was filed on 1st September, 1980. The petitions, therefore, suffer from aches and no explanation worth the name is offered by the petitioner for this inordinate delay.
(2) That the shares of the Company which were acquired by the Federal Government were transferred to Federal Light Engineering Corporation Ltd. As late as 12th July, 1974 but in spite of notice of the same no effort was made by the petitioners to implead Messrs Federal Light Engineering Corporation Ltd. As respondent in Petitions Nos. 624 of 1974 and 625 of 1974 which was pending in Court and even in Petition No, 1290 of 80 which was filed much after transfer of those shares, Messrs Federal Light Engineering Corporation was not impleaded as a party. It is accordingly contended that in the absence of a necessary party no writ could be issued.
(3) That the petitioners after acquisition of their shares by the Federal Government applied for issuance of compensation Bond and payment of compensation, therefore, and took several other steps which amounted to acquiscence on their part and as such they cannot now challenge the action of Federal Government.
' The above contentions of Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed were adopted by Mr. Syed Inayat Ali the learned standing counsel who appeared for the Federal Government in these cases. We may mention here that the main stay of Mr. Brohi's argument in all the above three petitions was the decision of this Court in Shamimur Rehman's case and as we were informed by the learned counsel for the parties at the hearing of these petitions that the appeal against the decision in Shamimur Rehman's case has been heard by the Supreme Court and decision thereon is reserved, we also reserved the judgment in the above petitions after conclusion of the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and thought it appropriate to await the decision of the Supreme Court in this regard. However, the judgment in Shamimur Rehman's case has not been announced so far by the Supreme Court and we feel that these petitions can be disposed of on the basis of above preliminary objections raised by the Company with regard to the laches, absence of necessary party and acquiscence on the part of the petitioners. We accordingly propose to deal with the preliminary objections first.
' The management of the company was taken over by the Federal Government and petitioners were ousted from the management thereof by the two notifications referred to above which were issued on 16th January, 1972. The order passed by the Federal Government acquiring the shares of the petitioners in the company was made on 29th November, 1973. Respondent 1 in his counter- affidavit dated 4tb October, 1980 filed in the petition No, 1290 of 1980 has taken the ground of laches and acquiscence on the part of the petitioners in paragraphs 3 to 5 and 19 as follows :- "3. It is submitted that the petition is barred by laches. On their own statement, the petitioners are aggrieved by action taken by the Federal Government on 16th January, 1972 but did not file the petition until September, 1980 more than 8f years after the act which is sought to be impugned was taken nor did they lodge any protest until the petitioner 1 allegedly made a representation to the President of Pakistan on 10th July, 1977. This representation was also allegedly made more than five and a half years after action was taken by the Federal Government and even after 10th September, 1977, the date of the alleged representation, the petitioners have by various acts acquiesced with the action taken, by inter alia, attending general meetings of the company, by electing and acting as Directors of the Company under the Economic Reforms Order, 1972, as amended, from time to time. It is submitted that the petitioners have thus disentitled themselves to discretionary relief from this Honourable Court.
4. It is submitted that the petition is further barred by the principles of acquiescence, waiver and estoppel. The petitioners had accepted the order of the Federal Government acquiring some of their shares in Quality Steel Works Ltd. And applied by their letter for issuance of Certificates of Entitlement to compensation in respect of the said shares. The petitioners tendered their shares certificates for such certificates of entitlement for which they were duly issued receipts full details whereof are set out in paragraph 19 hereinbelow.
5. It is submitted that further example of acquiescence is that the petitioners have on many occasions during the period 1972 to 1979 attended the general and extraordinary general meetings of the company. For sake of illustration out of many instances it is submitted that petitioner No, 4 attended the Annual General Meeting held on 29th December, 1972 and 29th March, 1974. The petitioner No, 6 attended the Annual General Meeting on 31st December, 1977 and petitioner No, 2 attended the extraordinary General Meeting held on 22nd February, 1979. It is further submitted that since the constitution of the Board of the Directors of the Company under Article 7-F of the Economic Reforms Order (inserted by Ordinance LXIV of 1978), thirteen meetings of the Board of Directors have been held till date, the first being on 19th May, 1979 and the last being on 4th August, 1980. The petitioner No, 2 as a Director of the Company attended all the thirteen Board meetings and his close associate, Mr. Hamid Ghani attended all except a few of these meetings. Moreover, both the petitioner. No, 2 and Mr. Hamid Ghani received Directors fee of Rs, 100 per every Board meetings attended by them. True copies of the Shareholders Attendance Register and extracts from Board meetings are annexed hereto and marked "H-1" to "H-".
19. With reference to paragraph 15 of the petition, it is denied that the shareholders were given notice that their shares were being expropriated. It is stated that the Federal Government in exercise of its powers under Article 7-B (1) (a) (i) of the Economic Reforms Order duly issued an order No, PB (8)/44/2/73-4, dated 29th November, 1973 which was conveyed to the petitioners by the respondent No, 1 by his letters, dated 6th and 8th December, 1973 informing them that some of their shares of the face value of Rs, 10 each had been decided to be acquired. The petitioners were expressly asked to ' apply for certificates of Entitlement to Compensation in respect of such shares.
A public notice was also issued in the Press in this regard. The petitioners lodged their share certificates by personal delivery or under cover of their letters. In respect of the shares that were pledged by the petitioners with the Banks, the share certificates were lodged by the Banks. It is denied that such acquisition amounted to expropriation as alleged.
' True copies of the letters of the predecessor in office of this respondent to the petitioners forwarding the Government's Order of acquisition of their shares are annexed hereto and marked Q-1 to Q-8.
' True copies of the letters of the Banks and the petitioner are annexed hereto and marked R-1 to R- 3 and R-4.
' True copies of the receipts issued to the petitioners for the share certificates surrendered by them are annexed hereto and marked S-1 to S-17.
' The petitioners' statement that the Constitution did not grant power to make law in respect of taking over and also of compulsory acquisition of commercial undertakings is totally misconceived. It is submitted that the Economic Reforms Order is a law in the field of Economic Reforms and cannot be simply equated with a law for compulsory acquisition simplicity. It is denied that the Economic Reforms Order and/or any of the amendments made therein from time to time and/or notifications issued thereunder are mala fide lagislations or ultra vires the Constitution or void. It is asserted that the acquisition of shares was in public interest and this is expressly stated in the order of the Federal Government."
' The petitioners in their rejoinder affidavit in reply to the above allegations stated as follows in paragraphs 6, 7 and 18 :- "6. That I deny the contents of para. 3 of the counter-affidavit. It is submitted that the petitioners had been making representations to the Government including the President of Pakistan, against taking over of the management and acquisition of shares, but the petiticncrs and their colleagues have not been favoured with any reply. Besides, the petitioners have continue cause of action and as such it is wrong to say that the petitioners are guilty of laches or that they have been disentitled to the reliefs from this Honourable Court for any reason as alleged or otherwise.
7. That I deny the contents of para. 4 of the counter-affidavit as written, and I say that the petition is not barred by the principles of acquiescence waiver and/or estoppel as alleged or otherwise. The petitioners never accepted the action of the Government of taking over the management of General Iron and Steel Works Limited now known as Quality Steel Works Limited and thereafter acquired the shares. It is submitted that whole action, as alleged by the respondent 1 in this para. Is mala fide, illegal and without lawful authority. Moreover, Martial Law Regulation 125 P.O. 1 of 1972 has provided continuous cause of action as has been held by this Honourable Court in Shamimur Rehman's case. In addition to that, Constitution Petitions Nos. 624 and 625 of 1974 are also pending, on the same cause of action, in this Honourable Court.
18. That the contents of para. 19 of the counter-affidavit are denied and the contents of para. 15 of the petition are reaffirmed. It is submitted that compensation of shares was not determined as provided by law and consequently the alleged proceedings were mala fide in order to camouflage the interest of the shareholders. The remaining allegations contained in this para. Are based on fallacies and are not maintainable in the eye of law."
Upon reading of the allegations made in counter-affidavit it is clear that respondent 1 specifically stated in paragraph 4 of its counter-affidavit that the petitioners accepted the order of Federal Government by which their shares in the company were acquired as they applied for issuance of certificate of entitlement to compensation in respect of their acquired shares and also surrendered their shares certificates for such entitlement certificates for which they were issued necessary receipts. In paragraph 19 of the counter-affidavit it is urged by respondent 1' that petitioners lodged their shares certificates by personal delivery or under cover of their letter and some of the shares of the petitioners which were pledged with the Bank were lodged by the Bankers of the petitioners.
These allegations of facts made in paras. 4 and 19 of the counter-affidavit of respondent 1 are not disputed by the petitioners in their rejoinder. In fact in paragraphs 17 and 18 of their rejoinder which was in reply to the above allegations of respondent 1, the petitioners only challenged the validity of the action of the Federal Government on legal plain and reliance in this connection was placed on the case of Shamimur Rehman decided by this Court. Similarly respondent 1 in paragraph 2 of its counter-affidavit categorically alleged that by order, dated 17th January, 1979 the Federal Government directed the company to constitute a Board of Directors of the Company in accordance with the newly-added Article 7-F in P.O. 1 of 1972 which was added on or about 20th November, 1978. It is further alleged by respondent I that in order to give effect to the above directive of Federal Government dated 17th January, 1979, requiring Constitution of the Board of Directors of the Company, an extraordinary general meeting of the shareholders of the company was called on 22nd February, 1979, which was attended amongst others by petitioner 2 in person and petitioners 1, 5 and 6 by proxy. Petitioner 1 had appointed one Mr. Hamid Ghani as his proxy while petitioners 5 and 6 appointed petitioner 2 as their proxy. In the above extraordinary general meeting of the company it is further alleged, both petitioner 2 and said Mr. Hamid Ghani offered themselves for election as Directors of the Company and they were so elected by the shareholders of the company including the petitioners. Further in paragraph 3 of its counter-affidavit respondent 1 alleged that by attending the extraordinary general meeting of the company by getting themselves elected as Directors of the Company and by acting in such capacity under the provisions of P.O. 1 of 1972 as amended from time to time the petitioners acquiesced in the action of the Federal Government. It is also stated in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner 2 and the said Hamid Ghani attended most of the meetings of the Board of Directors constituted under the provisions of P.O. 1 of 1972 and received Director's fee at the rate of Rs, 100 for each meeting they attended and took part in the management of company taken over under P.O. 1 of 1972. All the above averment of respondent 1 are supported by copies of the shareholders' attendance register and extracts from minutes of the meetings of Board of Directors. Neither the facts mentioned by respondent 1 in paras. 2, 3 and 5 as stated above nor the copies of documents produced with the counter-affidavit of respondent I are denied by the petitioners. On the contrary in paragraph 5 of the rejoinder, the petitioners pleaded ignorance of the fact stated in para. 2 of the counter-affidavit and further alleged that their participation in the affairs of the company was under protest. However the petitioners failed to show that their participation as shareholders of the company in the meeting held on 22nd February, 1979 or the election of petitioner 2 and the said Hamid A. Ghani as Directors of the Company by them was under protest. The copies of the shareholders attendance register and the extracts from the minutes of meetings of Board of Directors of the Company produced in the case and which are not disputed by the petitioners, do not support the stand taken by the petitioners. It is an admitted position that the petitioners were ousted from the management of the company by virtue of the notification issued on 16t January, 1972 but the petitions challenging the action was filed on 25t May, 1974 while petition No, 1290/80 was filed on 4th November, 1980. In the meantime not only the shares of the petitioners were acquired by the Central Government but these shares were further transferred I favour of Messrs Federal Light Engineering Corporation, who become a necessary party to this petition by virtue of such transfer of "acquired shares" in their favour. The petitioner in spite of knowledge of transfer of these shares and specific objection having been raised in this behalf in the counter-affidavit made no effort to implead Messrs Federal Light Engineering Corporation as respondent in these petitions.
There is no explanation by the petitioners for having delayed the filing of the petitions Nos. 624 and 625 of 1974 for almost about a period of two years and five months and petition No, 1290/81 for almost about 9 years. Mr. Brohi the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the cause of action to the petitioners is continuing one and, therefore, there are no laches in filing the above petition by the petitioners. We are unable to accept this contention. It is conceded by Mr. Brohi, that Fundamental Rights having been validly suspended, this Court cannot hold the action of Federal Government as invalid if it is in contravention of Fundamental Rights and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners had a continuing cause of action. The petitioners were ousted from the management of the company about 2 years before the filing of Petitions Nos. 624 and 625 of 1974 and about 9 years before filing of Petition No, 1290/80. In these circumstances the petitioners had to explain this inordinate delay in challenging the action of Government. They also had to explain the absence of Messrs Federal Light Engineering Corporation as party in the petition in whose favour the Federal Government transferred the entire acquired shares. Apart from the above considerations, I also find substantial force in the contention of learned counsel for respondent 1 that the petitioner's having taken part as shareholders of the company in the extraordinary general meeting of the company held on 22nd February, 1979 and having elected petitioner 2 and one Hamid A. Ghani as Directors of the Board of Directors of Company constituted under the provisions of P.O. 1 of 1972 and having consistently taken part in the management of the company completely acquiesced in the action taken by the Federal Government and are, therefore, debarred from objecting to the same. For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss all the above three petitions on ground of laches, acquiescence on the part of petitioners in the action of Federal Government and further on their failure to implead Messrs Federal Light Engineering Corporation as respondent in the petition which in the circumstances of the case is a necessary party to the petition. We will however make no order as to costs.