Summary: Background: The petitioner, a Constable in the Punjab Police, was issued a show cause notice for absenteeism from duty between November 4, 2010, and January 10, 2011, without leave or permission. The petitioner was incarcerated from August 2010 in relation to a criminal case, which affected his ability to respond to the show cause notice or participate in the departmental proceedings. Despite this, the dismissal order was passed ex-parte on January 11, 2011. The petitioner later filed a departmental appeal after his release, which was rejected as time-barred. The Punjab Service Tribunal upheld the rejection. The petitioner contested this decision, stating that he was unable to respond due to his imprisonment. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner was adequately informed of the show cause notice and dismissal order while incarcerated. -----2- Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s departmental appeal on the grounds of limitation was justified. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court determined that the petitioner’s inability to file an appeal was not due to negligence but due to his imprisonment and lack of access to the necessary documents. The Court emphasized that the dismissal order and show cause notice were not served to the petitioner while he was in jail, which hindered his ability to pursue a departmental appeal within the prescribed period. The Court also noted that delays in filing appeals from jail should be sympathetically considered, given the hardships faced by prisoners. The Court found that the Tribunal had failed to properly evaluate the circumstances and timeline of the petitioner’s case, leading to an unjust dismissal of his appeal. As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the petition, converted it into an appeal, and set aside the Tribunal’s judgment. The matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for a hearing on the merits of the case, with a fair opportunity provided to both parties. -----Citations/Precedents: Lahore High Court, Criminal Appeal No.371/2013 (Acquittal of petitioner) Service Tribunal Jurisprudence on Limitation for Incarcerated Petitioners General Principles on Delay in Appeals for Incarcerated Individuals

Summary: Background: This case involves a dispute concerning the dismissal of a cashier in 1976 for alleged misconduct. The dismissed employee, after 22 years, issued a grievance notice in 1997 and subsequently filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court. The Labour Court reinstated the employee without back benefits, a decision later overturned by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The High Court reinstated the employee without back benefits, prompting the employer to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court. The employer argued the petition was barred by limitation under labor laws. -----Issues: 1- Whether the grievance notice, issued 22 years after dismissal, complied with the statutory limitation period under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO 1969). ----2- Whether the Labour Court and High Court erred in disregarding the statutory limitation period for filing grievances. ----3- Whether reinstatement without back benefits was justified despite the significant delay in pursuing the claim. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Limitation Period: The Supreme Court emphasized that the grievance notice under Section 25-A of the IRO 1969 must be filed within three months of the cause of action. The 22-year delay was unjustified, and intermittent correspondence by the employee between 1978 and 1995 did not extend the limitation period. --Judicial Errors: The Labour Court and High Court failed to address the issue of limitation adequately. Neither provided reasons for condoning the delay, nor did the respondent provide a valid justification for the lapse. The courts' disregard for statutory deadlines undermined the legislative intent of ensuring timely resolution of labor disputes. --Reinstatement Without Back Benefits: The Supreme Court found that the long delay, combined with the respondent's failure to act within the prescribed period, rendered the High Court's order of reinstatement unsustainable. --Legislative Intent and Expedited Justice: The Court emphasized that labor laws prioritize swift dispute resolution, with specific timeframes for filing grievances to ensure efficiency and avoid prolonged litigation. The civil petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. The judgments of the Labour Court and High Court were set aside. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal’s judgment dismissing the grievance as time-barred was restored. -----Citations/Precedents: Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO 1969), Section 25-A: Requires grievance notices to be filed within three months of the cause of action. M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana & Another (AIR 2000 SC 168): "To perpetuate an error is no virtue, but to correct it is a compulsion of judicial conscience." Legal Maxim: "Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt" (The law aids the vigilant, not those who slumber).

Summary: This case addressed a dispute over the fixation of Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) for drugs under the Drug Pricing Policy, 2018. The petitioners, including Getz Pharma and others, contested a decision of the Federal Cabinet communicated through the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP). The Federal Cabinet had rejected the recommendations of the Drug Pricing Committee (DPC) to increase MRPs for certain drugs on hardship grounds. The petitioners argued that the Federal Government acted arbitrarily and failed to adhere to the Drug Pricing Policy and statutory requirements, including providing reasons for its decision or affording affected parties the opportunity to be heard. The case raised questions about administrative fairness, procedural impropriety, and compliance with statutory and constitutional mandates. ------ Issues: Did the Federal Government’s decision to reject the DPC's recommendation breach the procedural requirements under Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897? Was the rejection of hardship pricing inconsistent with the Drug Pricing Policy, 2018, and the statutory framework under the Drugs Act, 1976, and the DRAP Act, 2012? Did the decision violate the petitioners’ rights under Articles 10A (right to due process) and 18 (freedom of trade) of the Constitution? Could the Federal Government resile from its own declared policy without recording reasons or adhering to procedural fairness? -------- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome Holding: The Islamabad High Court set aside the Federal Cabinet’s decision to reject the DPC’s recommendations as arbitrary, procedurally flawed, and in violation of the Drug Pricing Policy, 2018, as well as the petitioners' constitutional rights. The Court directed the Federal Cabinet to reconsider the recommendations of the DPC and provide reasons if it chooses to reject them, after affording the petitioners an opportunity to be heard. -------- Reasoning: Procedural Fairness and Section 24A of the General Clauses Act: The Court emphasized that Section 24A imposes an obligation on public authorities to act reasonably, fairly, and justly while recording reasons for their decisions. The Federal Cabinet’s failure to provide reasons for rejecting the DPC’s recommendations violated this statutory obligation. ------ Compliance with Drug Pricing Policy, 2018: The Drug Pricing Policy prescribes clear criteria for determining MRPs, including hardship pricing mechanisms under Clause 9. The DPC had followed the policy’s prescribed formula and timelines to recommend price adjustments, which the Federal Cabinet arbitrarily rejected without justification. Legitimate Expectation and Administrative Law Principles: By enacting the Drug Pricing Policy, the Federal Government created legitimate expectations among pharmaceutical manufacturers that pricing decisions would follow the criteria and processes outlined in the policy. The Federal Government’s decision to disregard its own policy without reasons was deemed irrational and in violation of the principle of legitimate expectation. ------- Constitutional Violations: Article 10A (Due Process): The rejection of the DPC’s recommendations without affording the petitioners a hearing violated their right to due process. Article 18 (Freedom of Trade): Forcing pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs below cost without providing a rationale was inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of lawful trade and business. Public Interest and Right to Life (Article 9): The Court highlighted that unreasonable drug pricing decisions affect the public’s right to access affordable medicine, which is linked to the constitutional right to life. ------- Judicial Review and Reasonableness: Applying the principles of Wednesbury reasonableness, the Court found the Federal Government’s decision irrational and disproportionate. The lack of reasons and procedural fairness rendered the decision invalid under administrative law principles. -------- Outcome: The Court: Declared the Federal Cabinet’s rejection of the DPC’s recommendations as arbitrary and unlawful. Directed the Federal Cabinet to reconsider the DPC’s recommendations in accordance with the Drug Pricing Policy, 2018, and statutory requirements. Mandated that the Federal Government provide reasons for any decision inconsistent with the DPC’s recommendations and ensure due process rights for the petitioners. ----- Citations/Precedents: Statutes and Policies: Drugs Act, 1976 (Section 12): Delegates authority to the Federal Government to fix MRPs. DRAP Act, 2012 (Sections 7(c)(vii) & 32): Governs drug pricing and mandates adherence to the Drug Pricing Policy. Drug Pricing Policy, 2018 (Clause 9): Provides mechanisms for hardship pricing and timelines for MRP adjustments. General Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 24A): Requires public authorities to act reasonably, fairly, and document reasons. ------- Constitutional Provisions: Article 10A: Guarantees the right to due process. Article 18: Protects freedom of trade and business. Article 9: Ensures the right to life, including access to essential medicines. ------- Judicial Precedents: Associated Provincial Picture House v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948): Established the principle of Wednesbury reasonableness. Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan (2016 PTD 2269): Affirmed that the Federal Cabinet’s decisions must comply with statutory and constitutional obligations. Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan (2015 SCMR 630): Reiterated the obligation to act reasonably and structure discretion. National Savings Central Directorate v. Muhammad Farooq Raja (2021 CLD 370): Emphasized the doctrine of legitimate expectation and fairness. Sabir Iqbal v. Cantonment Board (PLD 2019 SC 189): Discussed proportionality in administrative decisions. ------ Significance: This judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness, reasoned decision-making, and adherence to declared policies by public authorities. It reaffirms that government decisions impacting public and commercial rights must align with constitutional principles, administrative law norms, and statutory requirements.

Summary: M/s Medequips, the applicant, filed a reference under Section 133(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, challenging an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (Tribunal) on June 24, 2024. The applicant raised the issue of whether the Tribunal failed to deliver a reasoned and speaking order as required by Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The applicant contended that the Tribunal dismissed their appeal without properly addressing the factual and legal questions raised. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether the Tribunal failed to pass a reasoned, just, fair, and speaking order in accordance with Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897? ----- 2) Whether the Tribunal's order was valid despite not providing reasoning or addressing the legal and factual questions raised by the applicant? ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court found in favor of the applicant, concluding that the Tribunal’s decision lacked proper reasoning and failed to address the factual and legal questions presented. The court emphasized that judicial and quasi-judicial forums are required to provide reasoned judgments to allow parties to appeal and for higher courts to properly exercise their jurisdiction. It referenced several precedents establishing the requirement for tribunals to issue speaking orders. The Tribunal's order of June 24, 2024, was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the Tribunal with instructions to pass a reasoned decision by October 14, 2024. ----- Citations/Precedents: Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897: Requires any authority to give reasons for its decisions. Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhary and another vs. Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Production, Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 2004 SC 413): Established that judicial forums must pass speaking orders. Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Limited vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariat, Islamabad and others (2015 SCMR 630): Reinforced that statutory power must be exercised reasonably, fairly, and justly with clear reasons provided. Amanullah Khan and others v. The Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others (PLD 1990 SC 1092): Discussed the structuring of discretion and the necessity of regulating discretionary powers through rules or policy statements. Khalid Humayun vs. The NAB through D.G. Quetta and others (PLD 2017 SC 194): Cited for principles related to the structuring of discretion in quasi-judicial powers. Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Legal), Peshawar vs. Khalid Umar Khan (2016 PTD 832): Cited for requiring speaking judgments. Messrs F.M.Y. Industries Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax and another (2014 SCMR 907): Clarified that questions of law, whether addressed or ignored by the Tribunal, must be considered in a reference application.

Summary: Bail denied --- The case pertains to the manufacturing of unregistered medicated cosmetics by SSI Marketing Network, with Amir Mahmood listed as the CEO. Facts: The prosecution claims that SSI Marketing Network, which deals in cosmetics, was inspected by the Drug Inspector in March 2024. During the inspection, the Inspector found medicated cosmetics without a valid manufacturing license. The products in question included Aneeza Gold Beauty Cream, Brido Luxury Gold Beauty Cream, Bio2You Cream, and Clobetasol propionate powder. These products were seized, and samples were sent for testing, which later confirmed the presence of allopathic drugs in the items. Amir Mahmood, the petitioner, argues that he is merely an employee and not responsible for the manufacturing process, attributing ownership of the company to Ijaz Ahmad. He claims that the case falls under the Pakistan General Cosmetics Act, 2023, not the Drugs Act. ----- Issues: 1) Whether the Drug Inspector lawfully conducted the inspection at SSI's premises. ----2) Whether Amir Mahmood, as an employee, can be held responsible for the alleged violations. ---3) Whether the manufacturing and sale of the seized products fall under the Drugs Act or the Pakistan General Cosmetics Act, 2023. ---4) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail based on the facts and law. ---- Holding and Legal Reasoning: Authority of the Drug Inspector: The court ruled that the Drug Inspector lawfully conducted the inspection under the Drugs Act, 1976. The seized products were medicated cosmetics, which contain allopathic drugs and fall under the scope of the DRAP Act, not the Pakistan General Cosmetics Act, 2023. Hence, the Petitioner’s argument that the raid was illegal was dismissed. ---- Petitioner’s Role in SSI: Although the Petitioner claimed to be merely an employee, the Prosecution presented evidence, including a Partnership Deed, suggesting that the Petitioner was a partner in SSI and thus responsible for its operations. The court found sufficient evidence indicating that Amir Mahmood shared the profits and liabilities of the firm, making him liable for its business activities. ----- Application of the Drugs Act vs. General Cosmetics Act: The court clarified that there is a distinction between general cosmetics and medicated cosmetics. The seized items, being medicated cosmetics, are governed by the Drugs Act and the DRAP Act, rendering the Petitioner’s reliance on the General Cosmetics Act inapplicable. ---- Pre-Arrest Bail: The court ruled that there was no credible evidence that the Petitioner was falsely implicated or that the arrest was for an ulterior motive. Therefore, the court dismissed the pre-arrest bail application, concluding that there was sufficient incriminating material to proceed against the Petitioner based on the available evidence. ---- Conclusion: The court dismissed the pre-arrest bail application, holding that the Petitioner, Amir Mahmood, was liable for the actions of SSI and that the Drug Inspector acted within his authority under the law. The court emphasized that the observations in this order were tentative and would not influence the trial court’s decision, which should be based on the merits of the evidence presented. ----- Key Legal Principles: A Drug Inspector can inspect any premises related to the manufacture of medicated cosmetics under the Drugs Act and DRAP Act. Being a nominee or an employee does not absolve one of liability if there is evidence of partnership and profit-sharing. Pre-arrest bail requires evidence of false implication or ulterior motive, which was not present in this case.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, Atif Munawar, filed an ejectment petition under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 ("the Act") against the respondent based on a written tenancy agreement dated 25.01.2021. The petitioner alleged that the respondent defaulted in payment of rent for the months of November 2022, December 2022, March 2023, and September 2023, sublet the premises, and caused damage. The Rent Tribunal declined the respondent's request to contest the ejectment petition, citing failure to pay rent in the landlord’s bank account, as stipulated in the tenancy agreement. However, the Appellate Court allowed the respondent's appeal, holding that evidence was required to establish whether rent was paid and to assess allegations of subletting and damage. The petitioner then filed this constitutional petition challenging the Appellate Court’s decision. ------ Issues: ------ 1) Whether a tenant who fails to deposit rent in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement is entitled to leave to contest the ejectment petition. ------ 2) Whether the Appellate Court erred in allowing the respondent to present evidence after failing to pay rent as agreed. ------ Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Enforcement of Tenancy Agreement: The court held that the tenancy agreement explicitly required the tenant to deposit rent into the landlord's specified bank account. The respondent’s claim that rent was paid in cash on the petitioner’s verbal instructions was unsupported by any written evidence. The court emphasized that parties must adhere to the terms of the contract they freely entered into, and deviation from the specified payment method without written agreement is a violation of the contract. ------ Admission of Non-compliance: The respondent had admitted in his appeal that rent was paid in cash, which contradicted the terms of the tenancy agreement. Given this admission, the court ruled that the respondent's plea to contest the eviction should not have been allowed, as there was no room for introducing evidence contrary to the express terms of the tenancy agreement. ------ Outcome: The court allowed the petition, set aside the Appellate Court's judgment, and upheld the Rent Tribunal's decision. The respondent's leave to contest the eviction was denied, and the petitioner’s right to evict the respondent for default in rent payment was upheld. ------ Citations/Precedents: Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (Section 7 – Payment of rent) Principle: Parties must strictly adhere to the terms of a contract, and courts should not allow deviations from explicit agreements.

Summary: The appointment of Deans in Public Sector Universities is required to be made in accordance with applicable law; and the Circular dated 29.12.2008 issued by Governor Punjab prescribing additional criteria with respect to appointment of Deans cannot be followed unless the same is incorporated in the relevant Statutes or Regulations or Rules of Public Sector University.

Summary: Though injured witness is stamped witness yet cannot be relied upon simply for the reason that he has stamp of injury on his body if otherwise his deposition is not confidence inspiring.

Summary: The appointment of Deans in Public Sector Universities is required to be made in accordance with applicable law; and the Circular dated 29.12.2008 issued by Governor Punjab prescribing additional criteria with respect to appointment of Deans cannot be followed unless the same is incorporated in the relevant Statutes or Regulations or Rules of Public Sector University. 963Co- Operative Petition 1993/22 Niagara Mills Pvt Ltd . Vs PCBL . Mr. Justice Asim Hafeez 20- 09- 2024 2024 LHC 3953 PLD 2025 Lahore 79, PLJ 2025 Lahore 371

Summary: Though injured witness is stamped witness yet cannot be relied upon simply for the reason that he has stamp of injury on his body if otherwise his deposition is not confidence inspiring. 962Service 27179/23 Prof Dr Shazia Arshad Vs Governor Punjab through Secretary Law & Parliamentary etc Mr. Justice Abid Hussain Chattha 23- 09- 2024 2024 LHC 4000 PLJ 2024 Lahore 806, 2025 PLC (CS) 398 (Lahore High Court)