Summary: (i) The provision of Section 22(3) of the Punjab Rent Premises Act, 2009 is directory in nature. (ii) A party cannot be compelled to deposit the rent in Court until and unless relationship of landlord and tenant is established. 496Writ Petition- Family- Maintenance 3547-23 MUHAMMAD BILAL VS HIFZA JEELANI ETC Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan 05- 05- 2025 2025 LHC 8135 2025 YLR 2669

Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Art. 185(3); Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – Ss. 497, 498; Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 – S. 7 —Pre-arrest bail—Delay in nomination—Supplementary statement—Further inquiry—Rule of consistency Petitioner, not named in FIR No. 103/2023, was implicated a month later through a supplementary statement based on social media content (tweets/audio/video clips) alleging criminal conspiracy in the May 9, 2023 events. Supreme Court held that the evidentiary value of such material and its delayed introduction falls within the domain of trial. No recovery made from petitioner; he had cooperated with investigation and alleged mala fide on part of police was not entirely baseless. Held, case called for further inquiry. Additionally, co-accused in same FIR had already been granted pre-arrest bail. Rule of consistency also applied in petitioner’s favour. Cited Case: • Imtiaz Mehmood v. The State, Crl. P. No. 1165/2024, decided 17.04.2025 (applied) (b) Criminal Procedure—Pre-arrest bail—Grant on grounds of further inquiry—Police harassment—Consistency with bail of co-accused Court found no recovery from petitioner nor evidence of abscondence; delay in implication and social media-based accusation necessitated deeper inquiry. Rule of consistency invoked as similarly placed co-accused had already secured relief. Held, ad-interim bail confirmed and petition converted into appeal and allowed. Disposition: Leave granted—Petition converted to appeal and allowed—Ad-interim pre-arrest bail confirmed Petitioner directed to cooperate in investigation. Observations held to be tentative and not binding at trial.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497(1)---Bail---Post-arrest bail---Supplementary statement---Social media content---Further inquiry---Rule of consistency Accused not nominated in FIR and implicated later via supplementary statement based on social media content—Prosecution alleged conspiracy using tweets/audio/video clips—Held, admissibility and evidentiary value of digital material yet to be determined at trial—Delay in recording FIR and supplementary statement also unexplained—Petitioner in custody since May 2023 while trial still ongoing—Prima facie case fell within domain of further inquiry—Rule of consistency also attracted as co-accused granted pre-arrest bail by Supreme Court on similar grounds—Post-arrest bail granted subject to surety—Observations tentative and not to influence trial. Cited Case: • Order dated 17.04.2025 in Imtiaz Mehmood’s case (co-accused) (b) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (XXVII of 1997) ----S. 7---Terrorism---Allegation of criminal conspiracy---Implication through digital/social media content---Scope for bail Allegation against petitioner of hatching conspiracy to incite violence on 9th May 2023 through social media—Court held that determination of whether such material satisfies threshold of terrorism under S.7 of ATA is to be evaluated at trial—Prolonged incarceration without trial not justified where doubt arises as to evidentiary sufficiency—Held, anti-terrorism provisions do not bar bail where case otherwise falls within purview of further inquiry under S. 497 Cr.P.C. (c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 10-A---Fair trial---Undue delay in conclusion of trial---Effect on bail Prosecution's failure to conclude trial within reasonable time despite accused's incarceration since May 2023—Held, prolonged pre-trial detention undermines fair trial guarantees—Bail cannot be withheld merely to punish accused—Delay partly attributable to prosecution and not solely to defence—Right to liberty and presumption of innocence emphasized—Post-arrest bail granted accordingly.

Summary: The questions of limitation, waiver and acquiescence cannot be brushed aside in every claim of inheritance. ? The distinction has to be drawn between a claim of inheritance agitated during the lifetime of the legal heir(s) and the one agitated after death of such legal heir(s) 531Election 34877/20 SNGPL . Vs Waseem Majid Malik etc Mr. Justice Shahid Karim 22- 04- 2025 2025 LHC 3529 2025 CLD 1260 (Lahore)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Hajj Policy---Moavineen-e-Hujjaj---Criteria---Concealment of facts---Petitioner was aggrieved of rejection of his application to proceed on Haj in the capacity of Moavineen-e-Hujjaj for performing welfare duties on the basis of attaining qualifying marks---Validity---Petitioner submitted application without providing mandatory documents including NOC and medical fitness certificate, thereby concealing relevant facts---Petitioner was employee of an autonomous body which did not fall under administrative control of any Ministry or Division as per Rules of Business, 1973---Petitioner moved application after accepting all terms and conditions outlined in the advertisement and undertook to comply with all policies and instructions issued by authorities---Petitioner failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the advertisement published by authorities warranting interference by High Court---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Chairman, Selection Committee/Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore and 2 others v. Wasif Zamir Ahmad and another 1997 SCMR 15; Qazi Abdul Jalil v. N.-W.F.P. Forest Development Corporation through Chairman and others 2010 SCMR 1933; Dossani Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. and others PLD 2014 SC 1; Abdul Karim Nausherwani and another v. The State through Chief Ehtesab Commissioner 2015 SCMR 397; Inspector General of Police, Quetta and another v. Fida Muhammad and others 2022 SCMR 1583; Nazar Muhammad Waraich and 7 others v. Zonal Head, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Paris Road, Sialkot and another 2010 PLC (C.S.) 701 and Hafiz Junaid Mahmood v. Government of Punjab and others PLD 2017 Lahore 1 distinguished. Dossani Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. and 4 others v. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. and others 2013 SCMR 1749; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others v. Hayat Hussain and others 2016 SCMR 1021; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Forest, Peshawar and others v. Sher Aman and others 2022 SCMR 406 and Vice-Chancellor Agriculture University, Peshawar and others v. Muhammad Shafiq and others 2024 SCMR 527 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Policy matter---High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution, can annul an order or a Policy framed by the Executive, if it is violative of the Constitution, law or is based upon mala fide. Mufariq Shah for Petitioner. Muhammad Zain Qazi, Assistant Attorney General along with Sheikh Akhtar Hussain, Deputy Assistant Director, Ministry of Religious Affairs, Directorate of Hajj, Lahore for Respondents.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 185(3) Maintainability---Petitioner challenged confiscation of trawler under Balochistan Sea Fisheries Ordinance, 1971---Petitioner's claim of lack of knowledge regarding illegal fishing activities carried out on his trawler rejected---Petitioner, as proprietor of the trawler, held responsible for ensuring lawful use of his property---Supreme Court emphasized the principle that constructive knowledge and accountability are attributed to proprietors when their property is used unlawfully---Court observed that economic benefit derived by the petitioner necessitated bearing legal burdens arising from unlawful acts---Petition found devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly. (b) Balochistan Sea Fisheries Ordinance, 1971 ----Ss. 3, 9---Illegal fishing---Confiscation of vessel---Scope and application---Trawler found engaged in illegal fishing with prohibited wire nets within restricted nautical limits without valid license---Confiscation of trawler and prohibited fishing gear held lawful under statutory provisions---Proprietor's ignorance of illegal activity not a valid defense---Presumption of constructive knowledge applied---Court held that confiscation of trawler was consistent with legislative intent to curb illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, which posed threat to marine biodiversity and livelihoods of coastal communities---Petitioner’s claim for release of trawler compared to seeking return of crime instrument by a criminal, and accordingly rejected. (c) Criminal Law ----Constructive knowledge---Liability of owner for acts committed through property---Scope---Where proprietor profits from operations conducted through his property, he cannot escape liability by pleading ignorance---Constructive knowledge principle ensures accountability for acts committed using property under owner’s control---Court applied maxim "Qui sentit commodum, debet et sentire onus" ("He who derives a benefit ought also to bear a burden")---Failure to conduct reasonable checks by owner resulted in attribution of liability for unlawful acts committed aboard the trawler. Cited Legal Maxim: • Qui sentit commodum, debet et sentire onus ("He who derives a benefit ought also to bear a burden.")

Summary: (a) Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974—Special Education Department (Directorate) Service Rules, 2006 ----Promotion---Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)---Deferment of promotion due to proposed amendments in Rules—Authority of DPC—Scope Promotion to post of Lecturer Physical Education (BS-17) under 25% quota for PETs/PTIs/DPEs with requisite qualifications could not be withheld on ground that existing rules required amendment—DPC deferred petitioner’s promotion on such basis despite her fulfilling all eligibility conditions including possession of M.A. in Physical Education (1st Division)—Held, DPC has no authority to question or suspend enforceability of valid service rules framed under law—Proposed amendments cannot override binding effect of existing rules—Petitioner had legitimate expectation of being considered for promotion—Decision of DPC declared unlawful, violative of right to be considered for promotion—DPC directed to reconsider petitioner’s promotion within one month. Cited Cases: • Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Anwar 2025 SCMR 153 • Naseem Khan v. Government of KPK 2024 SCMR 1341 • Federal Public Service Commission v. Shiraz Manzoor 2023 SCMR 2087 • Muhammad Amjad v. DG QDA 2022 SCMR 797 • Abdul Hameed v. Ministry of Housing & Works PLD 2008 SC 395 • Muhammad Ishaque v. Govt. of Punjab 2005 SCMR 980 (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 9---Right to life---Scope and expansion---Inclusion of right to livelihood and career progression Right to life under Art. 9 of Constitution includes right to live with dignity, encompassing right to livelihood and professional advancement—Held, arbitrary deferment or obstruction in promotion amounts to denial of fair opportunity and violates constitutional guarantees—Transparent and merit-based promotion processes essential for realizing right to livelihood—Career stagnation due to unlawful service practices renders constitutional rights hollow and illusory—Legitimate expectation of promotion, once eligibility is met, forms part of constitutional protection under Art. 9. Cited Cases: • Shehla Zia v. WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693 • Pir Imran Sajid v. Managing Director 2015 SCMR 1257 • Abdul Wahab v. HBL 2013 SCMR 1383 • Federation of Pakistan v. Jahanzeb 2022 SCMR 2020 • Mrs. Farkhanda Talat v. Federation of Pakistan 2007 SCMR 886 • Divisional Superintendent v. Umar Daraz 2023 SCMR 761 • Province of Punjab v. Kanwal Rashid 2021 SCMR 730 (c) Civil Service—Public Administration ----Impartiality of civil service—Meritocracy—Effect of political interference Supreme Court highlighted that civil bureaucracy must remain apolitical, professional, and merit-based—Observed that promotion processes must not be delayed arbitrarily or subjected to manipulation based on anticipated rule changes—Civil servants serve the Constitution, not political masters—Undue interference erodes morale, impartiality, and trust in public institutions—Quaid-e-Azam’s directive to civil servants cited: duty is to loyally serve any government formed under constitutional process—Transparent service laws essential to guard against favouritism and ensure equal opportunity. Cited Cases & References: • Muhammad Nasir Ismail v. Government of Punjab 2025 SCP 57 • Tariq Aziz-ud-Din 2010 SCMR 1301 • Quaid-e-Azam’s Address to Civil Officers (Peshawar, 1948) • Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization • Lorne Sossin, Speaking Truth to Power (2005) • E.N. Gladden, An Introduction to Public Administration (1952)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan – Art. 184(3) – Transfer of judges – Challenge to notification Original jurisdiction – Transfer of judges – Constitution Petitions filed under Art. 184(3) challenging Notification No. F.10(2)/2024-A.II dated 01.02.2025 whereby three Judges were transferred to the Islamabad High Court – Petitioners included bar associations and individuals – Held, matter involves questions of public importance with reference to enforcement of fundamental rights, particularly transparency in judicial appointments and inter-court transfers – Notices issued to all respondents; Attorney General appeared representing Federation and President of Pakistan – Further record directed to be submitted. Cited provisions: Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 184(3), 200 (b) Judicial Commission of Pakistan – Rules 9 & 10 – Notice and agenda of meeting Judicial appointments – Procedure for convening meeting of Judicial Commission – As per Rules 9 and 10 of JCP Rules, 2024, a minimum 15-day notice required for scheduling meeting and sharing agenda with members – Held, Attorney General’s statement confirmed that no JCP meeting had been scheduled for appointment/confirmation of Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court; next JCP meeting set for 2nd May, 2025 related to other High Courts – Statement taken on record. Cited rules: Judicial Commission of Pakistan Rules, 2024, Rr. 9 & 10 (c) Constitution Petition – Withdrawal – Doctrine of dominus litis Withdrawal of petition – Islamabad High Court Bar Association moved application CMA No.2168/2025 for withdrawal of C.P. No.23/2025 – Application filed by current President pursuant to resolution of Managing Committee dated 15.04.2025 – Held, current petitioner is dominus litis; withdrawal permitted and petition dismissed as withdrawn along with pending stay application. Cited principles: Doctrine of dominus litis (d) Judicial independence – Role of bar associations and state organs – Fairness in transfer of judges Judicial independence – Constitutional oversight of inter-court transfers – Petitioners raised concerns regarding transparency and legality of transfers – Held, issue touches upon independence of judiciary and the role of bar associations as constitutional stakeholders – Court to examine record including law ministry summary, Prime Minister’s advice, and President’s notification – Directions issued for submission of relevant documents and seniority lists from High Courts. Cited provisions: Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 200 Disposition: C.P. No. 23/2025 dismissed as withdrawn – Connected petitions adjourned to 22.04.2025 – Respondents and Registrars directed to file concise statements and seniority lists.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 184(3)---Constitutional petitions---Challenge to transfer of judges---Maintainability---Scope of judicial review--- Multiple constitutional petitions were filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution challenging Notification No.F.10(2)/2024-A.II dated 01.02.2025, whereby three Judges were transferred to the Islamabad High Court---Petitioners included bar associations, former office bearers, and individuals---Court issued notices to respondents including the President, Federation, Provincial Advocates General, and Registrars of various High Courts---Held, matter raises significant constitutional questions and was adjourned for further proceedings after initial directions and clarification regarding pending JCP meetings were recorded. (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 200---Transfer of Judges---Withdrawal of petition---Authority of bar association to withdraw constitutional petition---Doctrine of dominus litis--- Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA), through its newly elected Managing Committee, sought withdrawal of its constitutional petition (C.P. No. 23/2025) via resolution dated 15.04.2025---Court noted that while the original petition was filed by the previous Managing Committee, the new committee, being dominus litis, was competent to withdraw it---Held, petition stood dismissed as withdrawn along with connected application for interim relief. Disposition: C.P. No. 23/2025 dismissed as withdrawn. (c) Judicial Commission of Pakistan Rules, 2024 ----Rr. 9 & 10---Scheduling of meetings---Fifteen days’ notice---Court query regarding JCP deliberations--- Court inquired whether any meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) was scheduled for the appointment or confirmation of Chief Justice Islamabad High Court---Learned Attorney General submitted that no such meeting had been scheduled and that the upcoming JCP meeting fixed for 02.05.2025 pertained only to the Peshawar and Balochistan High Courts---This statement was recorded by the Court---Held, any meeting of the JCP is to be convened in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rules 9 and 10 of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan Rules, 2024. (d) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 175-A---Representation of JCP in judicial proceedings---Clarification regarding absence of authorisation--- Court queried the Attorney General whether he was appearing on behalf of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP)---Learned Attorney General clarified that he had not received any such instructions and was only appearing for the Federation and the President---Held, statement recorded; any representation of the JCP must be based on prior authorisation. **(e) Constitutional Procedure---Record of executive action---Call for production of summary and supporting material--- Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the concise statement filed by the Federation lacked the underlying record including the summary moved by the Ministry of Law and Justice for transfer of judges---Learned Attorney General undertook to submit the complete record before the next hearing---Held, such record shall include the summary to the Prime Minister and advice to the President in terms of Article 200 of the Constitution. Disposition: Constitution Petition No. 23/2025 dismissed as withdrawn. Remaining petitions adjourned to 22.04.2025 for further proceedings. Respondents including Advocates General and Registrars directed to file concise statements and seniority lists of Judges.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 184(3), 200 & 194---- Transfer of High Court Judges to Islamabad High Court—Notification by President—Scope of discretionary powers under Art. 200—Requirement of justiciable reasons—Effect of transfer on seniority—Maintainability under Art. 184(3)— Constitution Petitions filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution challenged Notification No. F.10(2)/2024-A.II dated 01.02.2025, whereby the President of Pakistan, exercising powers under Article 200, transferred sitting Judges to the Islamabad High Court—Petitioners contended that although transfer of Judges between High Courts is permitted under Art. 200, the discretionary power must be exercised in a transparent, reasonable and judicious manner—It was alleged that no cogent reasons were provided for the transfers, rendering the notification arbitrary and constitutionally infirm—Further asserted that transferred Judges had not taken a fresh oath under Art. 194, thus rendering the continuation of office legally questionable—Petitioners also challenged administrative rejection of their seniority representations by the Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court without proper application of mind, seeking restoration of their original seniority—Held, points raised regarding legality of notification, seniority implications, and compliance with constitutional requirements merit consideration—Notice issued to all respondents and constitutional law officers under Order XXVII-A, Rule 1 of the CPC. Cited Provisions: • Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 184(3), 200, 194 • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O. XXVII-A, R. 1 (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 200---- Transfer of High Court Judges—Seniority disputes—Requirement to specify period of transfer—Effect of transfer on existing judicial hierarchy— It was argued that any transfer order under Art. 200 must not be indefinite and should clearly state the period of transfer—Transferred Judges should be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the transferee High Court to prevent disruption in the existing judicial hierarchy—Upon return to their original High Court, their pre-transfer seniority must be restored—Held, constitutional implications of indefinite transfers and seniority realignment require judicial scrutiny—Notice issued to address these points. (c) Constitutional Petition—Maintainability— ----Scope of Art. 184(3)—Preliminary objections by office—Effect— Office of the Court raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the petitions under Art. 184(3)—Held, said objections to be examined on the next date of hearing after service of notice to all respondents and relevant law officers. ----- Disposition: Notice issued in all Constitution Petitions and connected CMAs, including stay applications—Matter adjourned for hearing on 17.04.2025.