Summary: In view of the above discussion, we are clear that petitioners proceeded on erroneous premises. On the issue of up-gradation, we seek guidance from the decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court rendered in the cases of GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Lahore, and others Vs. Ch. ABDUL SATTAR HANS and 29 others and REGIONAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, NORTHERN REGION, ISLAMABAD, and another Vs. Syed MUNAWAR ALI and others (2017 P L C (C.S.) 1030). Therefore, in our view, the petitioners have been unable to make out a case for the up-gradation/re-designation of their posts as Inland Revenue Audit Officer (BPS-18) with retrospective effect, based on discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Summary: [Service matters (Regularisation of Employee)] It is a general principle of law that in the absence of statutory rules of service a writ petition, in service matters, ought not to be entertained

Summary: [Order Vii, Rule 11 C.P.C (Allowed.)] (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.23, 189 & 201---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11, Expln.VI & O.VII, R.11---Suit for declaration and injunction---Res judicata, principle of---Rejection of plaint---Public importance issue---Plaintiffs were residents of road in question and they assailed commercialization of the road---Defendants sought rejection of plaint on the plea that commercialization of road in question had already been decided in earlier proceedings in presence of plaintiff's registered Association--- Validity--- Once registered Association of residents of the area was present before Court and 'issue' of public importance for and on behalf of residents was raised by them and the Court had decided the 'issue', the individual members or other residents of same locality were bound by the decision of Court on that particular 'issue' in which they were very much interested and they could not claim that such decision of the Court on the said 'issue' was not binding on them because they were not individually party to that judgment---Plaintiffs were no other than the community of residents of same locality and the issue re-agitated by them through the suit had already stood answered by Division Bench of High Court, therefore, earlier judgment was binding on them in terms of Expln.VI to S.11, C.P.C.---Plaintiffs abused process of Court in denying defendants to freely exercise their fundamental right to acquire, hold and 'dispose of property' guaranteed to them by Art.23 of the Constitution---Plaintiffs attempted to persuade the Court to pass orders against mandate of Arts.189 & 201 of the Constitution---Suit was dismissed with costs in circumstances.

Summary: In view of the above, the applicant / accused Khurram Shahzad son of Muhammad Yousuf Bhatti is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000.00 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) and a P.R. bond for the same amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The instant bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.

Summary: [Criminal Procedure Code Cr.P.C Bail After Arrest---497 (Offences under Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997)] The applicant/accused through the above bail application has sought post arrest bail in a case registered under Section 6/9-C C.N.S Act 1997, at Police Station Shah Faisal Colony, Karachi.The matter was considered in the light of Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others (2009 SCMR 1488), a larger Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court has elucidated the principles for considering the grant of bail, where offences fall within the non-prohibitory clause. The issue of violation of Sections 21 and 22 of the Control of Narcotic Substance Act 1997, was considered in the light of Muhammad Younas and others Vs. Mst. Parveen alias Mano and others (2007 SCMR 393).It was discussed that the guilt or innocence of an accused does not depend on the question of competent or otherwise of a Police Officer to investigate the offence. A trial of an accused is not vitiated merely on the ground that the case has been investigated by an officer who is not authorized to do so unless a contrary intention appears from the language of a statute. And the Court has to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused on the basis of the evidence produced before it irrespective of the manner in which he is brought before it.

Summary: The Court noted the petitioner's delayed filing after 12 years and the jurisdictional bar under Article 199(3) of the Constitution, which prohibits interference in armed forces service matters. Despite arguments, the Court dismissed the petition, citing lack of jurisdiction and dismissal of the case in limine, allowing the petitioner to seek redress through the appropriate legal channels.The decision underscored the limitations of the Court's jurisdiction in matters concerning armed forces service, citing established legal precedents and constitutional provisions. The dismissal emphasized adherence to legal frameworks and avenues for seeking redress within established legal parameters.

Summary: Service matters (Pension)

Summary: It is not only the petitioner for whom the respondents, includingfederal and provincial governments, have taken this decision but in factthe respondents in pursuit of their responsibilities to take care of thehealth of entire nation, have issued numerous notifications, circulars to curb the virus spread. Petitioner, instead of being supportive, is beingtroublesome in the smooth operation of effective measures undertakenby government. The government is primarily responsible to take care ofhealth of 220 million citizens of Pakistan and hence the desire of oneperson being petitioner cannot supersede the demand of ever-growingspread of pandemic Covid-19. The Sindh Government has already takensteps and are monitoring it periodically under the umbrella of SindhEpidemic Diseases Act, 2014. Section 3 of ibid Act enables thegovernment to take strict measures as they deem fit and proper in casethe provincial government feels the necessity of enforcing prescribedmeasures to curb the threatened situation.---This Covid-19 is exceeding and spreading for a number of reasonsthat it is new virus meaning that no one has immunity for this virus. It ishighly contagious, meaning it spreads fast. Its novelty meaning scientistsare still not completely sure as to how it behaves since it is changing itsform and producing different variants and since they have a very limitedhistory to go on. It is being reported worldwide that Covid-19 will haveits short medium and long term effects for general population, healthcare workers, patients and other citizens. As our general responsibilitywe need to think ahead of ourselves and think beyond and stop beingselfish, not only for our survival but for the survival of our population.The only way is to support the health care system.

Summary: Bomb Detector Khoji case-----In the case of Public Interest Law Association of Pakistan (PILAP) versus the Federation of Pakistan & others, heard at the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, the petitioner PILAP sought a declaration to deem the use and manufacturing of the "Khoji" bomb detector, fashioned after the ADE 651, illegal. They further requested a restraining order against the respondents from licensing, manufacturing, and utilizing the "Khoji" bomb detector. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Abdul Moiz Jafferi, Advocate, alleged a scam involving a British national in the assembly and use of fraudulent bomb detectors, which purportedly affected Pakistan's security measures. The respondents, particularly respondent No.2, responsible for airport security, refuted claims of procuring the banned ADE-651 and asserted the effectiveness of the "Khoji" detector. They argued that the petition lacked substantial evidence and relied on presumptions. Following deliberation, the court, led by Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Mr. Justice Agha Faisal, directed the respondents to maintain comprehensive safety and security at all airports and to convene a meeting within 15 days to reassess security measures. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) was tasked with providing modern equipment or technology for the Airports Security Force (ASF) if deemed necessary.

Summary: NAB matter - Appeal against conviction