Summary: The petitioner claimed that he was cultivating land in the area and was facing difficulties due to the illegal possession of government land by private respondents. The court questioned the maintainability of the petition in light of the government notification that prohibited cultivation of the land. The petitioner's counsel argued that the private respondents were involved in illegal occupation of the government land and that their actions violated Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The court considered the arguments and evidence presented. The petitioner's counsel argued that the private respondents were illegally cultivating Gaucher land despite the notification. The court questioned how the petitioner could claim proprietary rights without providing documentary proof. The court concluded that there were several disputed questions of fact involved in the case, and that civil litigation would be the appropriate forum to resolve the issues. The court also noted that if the government notification was still in operation, the official respondents were bound to implement it.

Summary: [Service matters (Back benefits), Service matters (Reinstatement into service)]The petitioners were employees of NADRA in their respective petition they have challenged order imposition of Major Penalty of reduction to a lower stage (two stages).Provisions of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973, Fundamental Rules and Constitution of Pakistan were discussed. It was decided in the case that the impugned order and imposition of Major Penalty of reduction to a lower post, passed against the petitioners were not sustainable in law. Consequently, these petitions were allowed the impugned orders were set-aside with the directions to pay the back benefits to the petitioners curtailed due to imposition of major penalty.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a police officer, was the investigating officer in a case related to the misappropriation of a tractor, registered under FIR No. 570/2019 at Police Station Gogera under sections 420/468/471 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The complainant, dissatisfied with the investigation, filed an application under Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of the Peace (JOP), requesting the transfer of the investigation and the initiation of proceedings under Article 155(1)(c) of the Police Order, 2002 against the petitioner for defective investigation. The JOP ordered the transfer of the investigation and directed the SHO to register an FIR against the petitioner under Article 155(1)(c) of the Police Order, 2002. The petitioner challenged the JOP's order, arguing that he had already been exonerated in a departmental inquiry and that the order for registering the FIR amounted to double jeopardy. -----Issues: 1- Was the direction for registration of an FIR under Article 155(1)(c) of the Police Order, 2002 against the petitioner valid? 2- Should the petitioner face criminal prosecution for a defective investigation despite already being exonerated in a departmental inquiry? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that while the JOP's order to transfer the investigation was valid, the direction to register an FIR under Article 155(1)(c) of the Police Order, 2002 was not warranted. The court explained that defective investigation under Sections 166(2) and 186(2) of the PPC is a non-cognizable offense, and the ex-officio JOP should not have ordered the registration of an FIR. The court directed that any action for defective investigation must proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., which requires permission from a Magistrate before investigating a non-cognizable offense. Additionally, the court emphasized that departmental action or reference to the Anti-Corruption Establishment could be initiated if the allegations warranted further investigation. The petition was disposed of with instructions to the SHO to enter the information in the relevant register and proceed in accordance with the law, including seeking the Magistrate’s permission for further investigation if necessary. -----Citations/Precedents: Mian Khan and others v. Inspector General of Police Punjab and others (PLD 2002 Lahore 619) Khizer Hayat and others v. Inspector General of Police (Punjab), Lahore and others (PLD 2005 Lahore 470) Zulfiqar v. Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Lahore and 2 others (2021 P Cr. L J 1779) Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 879) Haider Ali and another v. DPO Chakwal and others (2015 SCMR 1724) Mubashir Ahmed v. SHO Police Station Saddar, Gujranwala and 4 others (2007 P Cr. L J 384)

Summary: The scope and mandate of office of the CEO vis-a-vis the role and functions of the Board of Directors of a public sector company interpreted; the offices of the CEO, chairman and members of the Board are separate and independent in terms of their appointment, removal, role, powers and functions which are regulated by mandatory provisions of law and same cannot be circumvented or made redundant by exercise of discretionary or general powers vested by any such offices; the CEO of SNGPL can only be removed under Section 190 of the Companies Act, 2017 requiring three fourth majority of the total membership of the Board being not inconsistent with Section 22 of the State-Owned Enterprises (Governance and Operations) Act, 2023; and accordingly, the impugned decisions of the Board regarding withdrawal of powers of the CEO and appointment of Acting CEO were unlawful.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, through a writ petition, challenged the decision of the ex-officio Justice of Peace (JOP) in dismissing her application for registering a criminal case. She alleged that her son was abducted at gunpoint from the jurisdiction of Police Station Chak Bedi, District Pakpattan, and later, his dead body was found in District Sahiwal. The JOP dismissed her application on the grounds that no evidence supported the claim that the abduction occurred in District Pakpattan. ----Issues: 1- Whether the JOP had jurisdiction to assess the veracity of the allegations. 2- In cases where abduction occurs in one district and the body is found in another, which district has jurisdiction to register and investigate the case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Jurisdiction of the JOP: The Court held that the JOP exceeded his jurisdiction by assessing the veracity of the petitioner's claims. According to established legal precedent, the JOP is only empowered to assess whether the information provided constitutes a cognizable offense and should direct the police to register an FIR without determining the truthfulness of the allegations. The findings of the JOP in this regard were deemed unwarranted and were set aside. Territorial Jurisdiction for Registration and Investigation: The Court ruled that a case can be registered in either district—the district where the abduction occurred or where the body was found. The Police Rules, 1934, support this conclusion, stating that an FIR can be registered and investigated by the police station in the area where the act occurred or where the consequence of the act (in this case, the discovery of the body) ensued. Therefore, the police in District Pakpattan were under a duty to register the case, but failed to do so. The writ petition was allowed, and the order of the JOP was set aside. The Court directed the SHO of Police Station Chak Bedi, District Pakpattan, to record the petitioner’s statement under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code and register a criminal case. The investigation is to be conducted fairly, and a report is to be submitted under Section 173 after completing the investigation in a timely manner. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2007 SC 539 PLD 2018 SC 595 Hakim Mumtaz Ahmad & another vs. The State (PLD 2002 SC 590)

Summary: Background: The case involves a dispute between two companies, M/s Mandviwalla Builders & Developers (Petitioner No.1) and Mangla View Resort (Pvt.) Ltd. (Petitioner No.2), and the CEO of Mangla View Resort, along with Mangla Garrison Housing (Pvt.) Ltd. (Respondents). The dispute arose over the management and operations of a joint housing project at Mangla, where Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 each held 50% shares. After the termination of a joint venture agreement (JVA), the Petitioners alleged that the Respondents shifted the capital and operations to a newly formed company, Mangla Garrison Housing (Pvt.) Ltd., without informing or obtaining permission from the Petitioners, leading to alleged fraudulent and unlawful actions. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, had territorial jurisdiction over the case, considering the location of the registered office of the Petitioner Company. 2- Whether the actions of Respondent No.1 and Mangla Garrison Housing (Pvt.) Ltd. constituted a violation of the joint venture agreement and fiduciary duties. 3- Whether the Court should strike off the main petition for lack of jurisdiction and impose costs for misleading the Court. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Jurisdiction Issue: The Court determined that under Section 5 of the Companies Act, 2017, jurisdiction lies with the High Court having authority over the place where the registered office of the company is located. In this case, the registered office of the Petitioner Company was in Lahore, not Rawalpindi. Therefore, the Rawalpindi Bench lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, and the petition was returned to be filed in the Lahore High Court, Principal Seat. Conduct of Respondent No.1: While the Court did not decide the merits of the alleged violations by Respondent No.1, it acknowledged the issues raised by the Petitioners regarding potential breaches of the joint venture agreement and fiduciary duties. However, it ruled that these issues should be addressed by the appropriate court with jurisdiction. Costs and Misrepresentation: The Court did not impose costs or penalties for misleading information but directed that the petition be returned to the appropriate jurisdiction. ----Citations/Precedents: Nadeem Kiani v. MS American Lycetuff Pvt. Ltd. (2021 CLD 7) Province of Punjab v. Messrs Muhammad Tufail & Co. (PLD 2017 SC 53) Jet Green (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2021 Lahore 770) Zafar Iqbal v. Nasreen Ahmed (2014 CLD 1039) Brother Steel Mills Ltd. v. Mian Ilyas Miraj (PLD 1996 SC 543) Phoenix Security Service (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Emerald Mining Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (PLD 2000 Peshawar 78)

Summary: Occupational Groups and Services (Probation, Training, and Seniority) Rules, 1990The questions in the context are whether the petitioner has any enforceable right to seek direction to respondents to allow him to join 49th Common Training Program 2021, commencing in the ensuing month. And whether the respondents are required to act fairly, in a manner which is not arbitrary and in accordance with the established practice followed by it over a long period in making such deferments to other candidates namely Hamood-ur-Rehman, Taveer Shahoor Rana, Abraiz Ali Abbasi, Ahmed Saeed Manj and Ateeq-Ullah under the prevailing occupational groups and services (Probation, Training, and Seniority) Rules, 1990.

Summary: In the captioned Petition bearing No.D-1970 of 2019, the only issue involved is the issuance of two Corrigendum dated 11.03.2019 & 16.6.2019 respectively relating to advertisement. The Petitioner has assailed the legality of the above-specified Corrigendum whereby Respondent-Board changed the academic qualification of candidates as well as the upper age limit from 62 to 65 years for the post of Vice-Chancellor of Peoples University . We in the aforesaid circumstances hold that the recommendation of the Search Committee to the competent authority for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor PUMHSW, Shaheed Benazirabad in pursuance of corrigendum as discussed supra was without lawful authority and awarding marks to the candidates by the Search Committee is also held to be against the clear command of the Honorable Supreme Court in the cases discussed in the preceding paragraph. Accordingly, we direct the Search Committee /competent authority to hold a fresh interview of the shortlisted candidates made before the issuance of corrigendum and make recommendation to the competent authority for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor, PUMHSW, petitions are disposed of.

Summary: Basically, the matter pertains to minor penalties which were imposed on the petitioners under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, (now repealed), they challenged their reduction into lower grade in the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) but their appeals were abated and thereafter they filed these petitions before this Court---In the light of judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court as discussed supra which was implemented by the respondents in letter and spirit, we are not convinced with the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are not entitled to the financial benefits with effect from the date of their demotion in year 2003, rather from year 2012---In the light of findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide orders dated 24.3.2010 and 20.5.2010 in the aforesaid proceedings, these petitions are allowed with no order as to costs by directing the competent authority of respondents to re-calculate the pensionery benefits of the petitioners and other benefits as admissible under the law with effect from their demotion and reduction in increment. Such amount must be deposited with the Nazir of this Court within a period of one (01) month which shall be paid to the petitioners on proper verification and confirmation.

Summary: [PTCL Service Regulations, 1996] Disciplinary proceedings against employee of PTCL were initiated and proceededunder Government Servant (E&D) Rules, 1973, and not under the PTCL Service Regulations, 1996. Furthermore, it is a well settled principle of law that where the law required an act to be done in a particular manner, it had to be done in that manner alone and such dictate of law cannot be termed as a technicality or mere formality, and where things have not been done in the manner, as required by the law and procedure, the same cannot be given legal sanctity particularly when the same are resulting in penal consequences or causing irreparable injury to an individual