Summary: (a) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 ----S. 18 & S. 47; MoI Notification dated 19-04-2017 (blocked-CNIC SOPs)—Cancellation/impounding power—“Reason to believe”—Scope---CNIC previously issued to petitioner No.1 and MNICs/CNICs issued to her husband and father-in-law established a continuous chain of identity; passport also issued on the basis of CNIC—In absence of any allegation or proof under S. 18(2)(a)–(d) (ineligibility, multiple cards on same eligibility, obliteration/tampering, or forgery), NADRA could not refuse issuance of corrected CNIC or renewal—Pre-1978 documentary requirements in MoI SOPs (land record, domicile, pedigree, employment certificate, educational certificates, passport, arms/driving licence, MNIC etc.) may apply to blocked-CNIC cases, but were inapplicable where CNICs had already been lawfully issued and no S. 18 basis was invoked or established—“Reason to believe” must rest on tangible evidence; mere insistence on SOP formalities cannot defeat extant statutory protections. (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Mandamus—Where Zonal Board recommended and respondent No.3 approved correction of date of birth, NADRA’s subsequent delay/refusal to issue corrected CNIC and to renew petitioner No.2’s CNIC was unjustified—Writ jurisdiction competently invoked to enforce performance of a legal duty arising under the Ordinance, 2000 and the approval already granted. (c) Administrative law—Presumption of regularity; burden on authority ----Prior issuance of CNICs/MNIC and passport carries presumption that statutory requirements were observed; unless rebutted through the S. 18 process (notice and proof within clauses (a)–(d)), NADRA must honour existing entitlements and approvals—No adverse presumption lies against the citizen where the department’s own records support identity and eligibility. Disposition --- Petition allowed. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 directed to issue corrected CNIC to petitioner No.1 (as already approved) and to renew petitioner No.2’s CNIC without delay. Copy to DG NADRA, Balochistan, for compliance.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)— Arts. 4, 199 & 212 — Constitutional jurisdiction — Maintainability — Nature of challenge — Disciplinary proceedings against public prosecutors — Scope of writ jurisdiction — Bar of Article 212 — Applicability.Held, where disciplinary action is challenged not on the basis of terms and conditions of service but for being initiated in violation of statutory mandate (Section 10(2) of Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service Act, 2006), constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is maintainable — Bar under Article 212 is not attracted where a pure question of law regarding lawful authority of respondents is raised.(b) Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006— Ss. 5, 6, 9, 10(1), 10(2), 13, 17 & 18 — Prosecutorial structure and independence — Hierarchical command — Disciplinary authority — Prosecutor General as head of service — Role of Appeal Committees — Scope of recommendations — Validity of proceedings initiated without reference by Prosecutor General.Held, the Prosecutor General is the administrative and functional head of the Prosecution Service with exclusive statutory mandate to issue directions and oversee prosecutorial conduct — All prosecutors are bound to follow Code of Conduct and guidelines issued by the Prosecutor General — No disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against a prosecutor without a reference from the Prosecutor General or District Public Prosecutor under Section 10(2) of the Act — Initiation of proceedings by Secretary, Public Prosecution Department, in absence of such reference, held illegal and ultra vires.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (1898)— Ss. 417, 492–495 — Prosecution — Functions and powers of Public Prosecutors — Role in trial and appeals — Distinction between opinion and final authority to appeal — Legal protection to prosecutorial discretion.Held, opinion formed by prosecutors or appeal committees regarding fitness of case for appeal is advisory and not binding on the Government — Absence of mala fide precludes punitive consequences — Prosecutors’ assessments, when made in accordance with issued guidelines, enjoy statutory protection under Section 18(1) of the 2006 Act.(d) Interpretation of Statutes— Delegation of powers — Statutory compliance — Mandatory procedural requirement — Non-compliance — Effect.Held, Section 10(2) of the 2006 Act vests exclusive authority in Prosecutor General or District Public Prosecutor to initiate reference for disciplinary proceedings — Any action taken in contravention is void and without legal effect — Procedural safeguards prescribed in statute cannot be bypassed or substituted.(e) Administrative Law— Ultra vires — Absence of lawful authority — Quashment of disciplinary proceedings.Held, orders passed by Secretary Public Prosecution and inquiry report prepared without statutory authority or proper reference held to be ultra vires, illegal, and void ab initio — Entire proceedings quashed.Disposition:Writ petition allowed.Impugned disciplinary proceedings declared to have been initiated without lawful authority.Orders dated 16.07.2021, 07.10.2021, and 05.04.2022 set aside and quashed.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 15, 199, 4 & 10-A Freedom of movement—Placement of citizen’s name on Exit Control List (ECL), Passport Control List (PCL), and Provincial National Identification List (PNIL)—Scope and legality—Petitioner’s name was placed on ECL and PCL based on FIRs registered against him without affording any notice or hearing—Petitioner had been granted pre-arrest bail in all such cases—No approval of Federal Government was shown for inclusion of name on PCL as required under Rule 22 of the Passport Rules, 2021—Held, that freedom of movement is a fundamental right guaranteed under Art.15 of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed without due process—Absence of notice, hearing, or lawful authority rendered the action unlawful—Right to liberty and movement includes dignity and the right to travel for lawful purposes such as Umrah—Failure to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards violated Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution—Such restrictions, in the absence of cogent justification and legal authority, are repugnant to constitutional protections and liable to be set aside—Petition allowed. Cited Cases: • Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2019 Islamabad 316 • Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan, 2024 MLD 1020 • Rasikh Ellahi v. Federation of Pakistan, 2024 YLR 2616 • Controller General of Accounts v. Fazil Ahmad, 2021 SCMR 800 • Govt. of Sindh v. Dr. Nadeem Rizvi, 2020 SCMR 1 • Messrs Mustafa Impex v. Govt. of Pakistan, PLD 2016 SC 808 • Faisal Maqbool Sheikh v. Federation of Pakistan, W.P. No. 2141/2023

Summary: a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 10-A, 15, 25 & 199 Freedom of movement—Placement of civil servant’s name on PNIL, PCL and restricted lists—Scope and legality—Petitioner, a serving Collector of Customs, challenged inclusion of his name on travel restriction lists without notice or hearing—Name was placed on Passport Control List (PCL) under Rule 22(2)(b) of the Passports Rules, 2021, and on PNIL under FIA Standing Order No. 2/2018 in connection with FIR No. 19/2023 registered under S. 5(2) PCA, 1947, read with Customs Act, 1969 and S. 109, PPC—Held, petitioner was not a fugitive nor accused of any heinous crime as required for PNIL placement—FIA acted mechanically without applying mind or forming opinion independently—Name placed on PCL without approval of Federal Government, in violation of Rule 22 and law laid down in Mustafa Impex case—No show cause notice issued nor any opportunity of hearing afforded—Action held to be arbitrary, mala fide, and lacking lawful authority—Fundamental rights under Arts. 4 (due process), 10-A (fair trial), and 15 (freedom of movement) were infringed—Availability of alternate remedy before Review Committee did not bar exercise of constitutional jurisdiction where violation of fundamental rights was apparent—Petition allowed. Cited Cases: • Govt. of Pakistan and another v. Dada Amir Haider Khan, PLD 1987 SC 504 • Federation of Pakistan v. General (R) Pervez Musharraf, PLD 2016 SC 570 • Federal Government v. Ms. Ayyan Ali, 2017 SCMR 1179 • Sheikh Shan Ilahi v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2023 Lahore 359 • Messrs Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan, PLD 2016 SC 808

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in W.P. No. 1806 of 2013). (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 10A---Civil service---Disciplinary proceedings---Due process---Affected civil servants must be granted a fair hearing, and disciplinary proceedings must adhere to legal requirements---Due process ensures that no officer is unjustly penalized without being given an opportunity to present their defense---Courts must exercise judicial restraint and avoid undue interference with executive discretion---Judicial review is necessary to prevent abuse of power---Courts must respect autonomy of Executive branch in managing its employees---Judicial intervention should be limited to cases involving clear illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fide intent---Courts must balance individual rights with the larger public interest. (b) Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006)--- ----Ss. 5 & 13(5)(ii), second proviso---Disciplinary proceedings---Major penalty, imposing of---Absence without leave---Principle of proportionality---Applicability---Punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon civil servant who remained absent from service for 48 days, without leave---Validity---Authority of competent authority in imposing any of the three major penalties is not restricted under second proviso to section 13(5)(ii) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, even where period of absence from duty is less than one year---Where competent authority elects to impose a major penalty in cases of absence from duty for less than a year, it must do so in accordance with the principle of proportionality---Civil servant remained absent from duty for a total of 48 days and imposition of major penalty of compulsory retirement failed to meet test of proportionality---Neither the punishment established rational nexus between misconduct and severity of penalty nor it considered less restrictive alternatives---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by High Court to the extent of the penalty imposed---Supreme Court directed that reinstatement of civil servant would be subject to a fresh determination by competent authority---Supreme Court directed competent authority to revisit case of civil servant and impose a penalty commensurate with the gravity of misconduct---Appeal was allowed. Sunni Ittehad Council v. Election Commission of Pakistan PLD 2025 SC 67; East and West Steamship v. Pakistan PLD 1958 SC 41; Pramath Nath v. Kamir Mondal PLD 1965 SC 434; Hamdard Dawakhana v. C.I.T PLD 1980 SC 84; Kadir Bux v. Province of Sindh 1982 SCMR 582; K.E.S.C. Progressive Workers' Union v. K.E.S.C Labour Union 1991 SCMR 888; Nawaz Bibi v. Allah Ditta 1998 SCMR 2381; N S Bindra, Interpretation of Statutes Lexis Nexis, 13th Edition, 2022; De Smith's Judicial Review Sweet and Maxwell, 8th Edition, 2018; Sabir Iqbal v. Cantonment Board PLD 2019 SC 189; Muhammad Iqbal Khan Noori v. NAB PLD 2021 SC 916 and Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services v. Nadeem Raza 2023 SCMR 803 rel. Haseeb Shakoor Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Haroon Irshad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th February, 2025.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 199, 212(2) & 13---Writ jurisdiction despite Art. 212(2) bar---Order directing de-novo inquiry not a “final order” relating to terms and conditions; High Court’s jurisdiction under Art. 199 not ousted---Initiating a second/de-novo inquiry on identical charges after a lawful exoneration violates Art. 13 (double jeopardy) and the rule that no one be vexed twice for the same cause. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Tariq Saeed v. Government of the Punjab, 2022 LHC (relied upon for maintainability where only an inquiry is ordered) • Sayyed Saeed Hussain Shah v. Province of Punjab 1981 PLC 297 • Muhammad Yar Buttar v. Board of Governors, OPF 1999 SCMR 819 (b) Balochistan Employees’ Efficiency and Discipline Act, 2011 ----Ss. 13(6) & 17(7)---Scope of de-novo inquiry and revisional powers---Where, pursuant to Supreme Court’s directions, a regular inquiry has been conducted, recommendations accepted by the competent authority, and the civil servant reinstated, a subsequent statement of allegations on the same charges under S. 13(6) is void ab initio; departmental reliance on S. 17(7) cannot override finality of prior exoneration. (c) Fundamental Rules ----FR-54 (Section-I, Chapter-VIII), cl. (a)---Back benefits on reinstatement---Entitlement to arrears, seniority, and related service benefits must be examined under FR-54 by the competent authority/committee; inquiry limited to quantum and conditions of back benefits (including mitigation for outside earnings), not to re-opening concluded misconduct charges. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Bashir v. Government of Punjab 1994 SCMR 1801 (guidelines for FR-54 determination and committee process) (d) Service law—effect of earlier Supreme Court order and departmental exoneration ----De-novo inquiry after exoneration---Pursuant to Supreme Court’s order dated 12-02-2018 in CP No. 169-Q/2012, a regular inquiry was held and the petitioner was exonerated; recommendations accepted and petitioner reinstated vide notifications dated 17-07-2019 and 01-08-2019---Issuance of fresh statement of allegations on identical facts is unlawful and contrary to final departmental adjudication. Cited Cases: • Director-General (Field), Agriculture Dept., Lahore v. Haji Abdul Rehman, PLD/SC (principle against being vexed twice affirmed) Disposition --- Constitution petition partly allowed. Statement of allegations/de-novo inquiry dated 31-08-2022 under S. 13(6) of BEEDA, 2011 set aside. Competent authority directed to process petitioner’s claim for back benefits strictly under FR-54 and in light of Muhammad Bashir (1994 SCMR 1801). Order accordingly.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 10-A, 15 & 199 Freedom of movement—Passport blocked and name placed on Passport Control List (PCL)—Legality—Petitioner was stopped at airport and informed his passport had been blocked by FIA due to inclusion of name on blacklist—Respondents placed petitioner’s name on PCL based on recommendation of FIA Balochistan Zone, citing deportation by Iranian authorities for illegal stay in 2021—No notice issued, no opportunity of hearing granted, and no approval obtained from Federal Government as required under Rule 22(1) of the Passports Rules, 2021—Held, petitioner’s fundamental rights under Arts. 4, 10-A and 15 of the Constitution were violated—Power to regulate travel rests with the Federal Government, which includes the Cabinet, not subordinate agencies—Absence of due process and lack of lawful authority rendered action void—Mere deportation in past without present legal bar or criminal case could not justify continued restriction—Petitioner held valid visa and intended to travel abroad for employment—Action declared illegal, arbitrary and mala fide—Petition allowed, and respondents directed to immediately remove petitioner’s name from PCL. Cited Cases: • Messrs Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan, PLD 2016 SC 808 • Controller General of Accounts v. Fazil Ahmad, 2021 SCMR 800 • Govt. of Sindh v. Dr. Nadeem Rizvi, 2020 SCMR 1 • Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan, 2024 MLD 1020 • Rasikh Ellahi v. Federation of Pakistan, 2024 YLR 2616 • Tariq Shafi v. Federation of Pakistan, W.P. No. 224/2024 • Faisal Maqbool Sheikh v. Federation of Pakistan, W.P. No. 2141/2023 • Fawad Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan, W.P. No. 2129/2024 • Sadaf Sharjeel v. NAB, 2022 YLR 2441 • Farah Mazhar v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2022 Lahore 119 • Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2019 Islamabad 316 • Dr. Joseph Wilson v. Federation of Pakistan, 2017 PCrLJ 1569 • Mahboob Ali Abro v. Ayyan Ali, 2016 PSC 938 • Sohail Latif v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2008 Lahore 341

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 13.10.2023 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in W.P. No.6921-P of 2019). (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Judicial review---Scope---High Court, while exercising its powers of judicial review with respect to orders passed by Courts or Tribunals, should not substitute its own findings for those of such Courts or Tribunals. Nawaza v. The Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1970 SC 39 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Writ of certiorari---Scope---Where High Court quashes a decision, it has discretion either to take judicial notice and rectify a jurisdictional error in the order or to remand the matter to the Court, Tribunal or the authority concerned with a direction to reconsider it and to reach a decision in accordance with the judgment given by High Court, while deciding a writ of certiorari. Chief Constable of North Wales Police v. Evans [1982] 3 All ER 141 rel. (c) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 5, Sched.---Family dispute---Maintenance---Quantum---Judicial review---Substituting findings of facts---Respondent/ex-wife filed suit for recovery of maintenance and gold jewellery etc. against appellant/ex-husband---Family Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent/ex-wife to recover gold jewellery and fixed maintenance allowance at Rs.3000/- per month---Lower Appellate Court modified judgment and decree and did not find respondent/ex-wife entitled to recover gold jewellery---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction enhanced quantum of maintenance allowance to Rs. 10,000/- per month and also found her entitled to recover gold jewellery---Validity---High Court referred to testimony of 14 witnesses in holding that respondent/ex-wife was kept in her parents' house without maintenance, and that this would entitle her to a higher quantum of maintenance than that granted to her by the Courts below---High Court was well within its rights to have partially set-aside judgment and decree of Lower Appellate Court but should have remanded the matter to Lower Appellate Court for a decision in the light of observations of High Court---Supreme Court set aside finding of High Court whereby it substituted its findings with those of Lower Appellate Court---Supreme Court maintained decision of High Court to issue a writ of certiorari with respect to judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and remanded the matter to Lower Appellate Court to decide the appeal (on the question whether respondent/ex-wife was entitled to recovery of 04 tolas of gold ornaments and a higher quantum of maintenance) in the light of observations made by High Court---Appeal was allowed. Abdul Ahad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Zia ur Rehman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1 (via video link, Peshawar). Date of hearing: 17th February, 2025.

Summary: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 74 & 76---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151 & O.XIII, R. 2---Suit for recovery of money---Secondary evidence---Loss of original documents---Due diligence---Proof---Plaintiff/applicant sought permission to produce secondary evidence with regard to documents in question which were claimed to be lost---Validity---Plaintiff/applicant could not claim benefit of Art. 76(c) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Loss of original documents was not due to uncontrollable or unforeseeable event but rather resulted from plaintiff's/applicant's own internal mismanagement---Allowing secondary evidence under such conditions would undermine the principle that parties must exercise proper care in preserving documentary evidence, particularly when such documents form basis of a legal claim---Request of plaintiff/applicant to rely on secondary evidence under Art. 76(c) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was legally unsustainable and could not be entertained---Protection of Art. 76(c) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 is not granted mechanically or routinely; it is contingent upon the party demonstrating that loss of documents occurred despite exercising reasonable care and was not due to its own negligence---Plaintiff's casual assertion of loss, without any accompanying evidence of efforts to prevent or mitigate such loss, indicated lack of due diligence---Such plea was only raised when Evidence Commissioner refused to exhibit photocopies of documents concerned---High Court declined producing of secondary evidence of documents in question as plaintiff/applicant was treating invocation of Art. 76(c) of Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, as an afterthought rather than a legitimate legal entitlement---Application was dismissed, in circumstances. Akhtar Sultana v. Muzaffar Khan Malik PLD 2021 SC 715; Khurshid Begum v. Chiragh Muhammad 1995 SCMR 1237; Gujranwala Development Authority v. Muhammad Hussain 2001 YLR 1884; Amirzada Khan v. Ahmad Noor PLD 2003 SC 410 and Noor Jehan v. Saleem Shahadat 2022 SCMR 918 ref. Iftikhar Ahmad v. Muhammad Younus Khan 1982 CLC 2114; Ghulam Ali v. Muhammad Hussain Kathawala PLD 1985 Kar. 152; Javed Rafat Khan v. Shabbir Tiles PLD 2005 Kar. 1 and Uzma Aziz v. Maryam PLD 2006 Kar. 58 rel. Faiz Durrani for Plaintiff. Abdallah Azzaam Naqvi for Defendant. Dates of hearing: 11th, 22nd December, 2023, 18th March, 2024 and 10th February, 2025.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973----Art. 199---Writ of certiorari---Scope and limitations---High Court’s power of judicial review---The High Court, while exercising judicial review under Art. 199, must not substitute its own findings for those of the lower courts or tribunals but may intervene where there is a jurisdictional error, non-consideration of material evidence, or an error of law on the face of the record---In the present case, the High Court modified the appellate court’s decision by awarding enhanced maintenance and granting recovery of gold ornaments without remanding the matter for reconsideration---Held, that while the High Court had the authority to issue a writ of certiorari where the lower court’s findings were flawed, it should have remanded the case for fresh adjudication instead of substituting its own findings.Cited Cases:Nawaza v. Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1970 SC 391Chief Constable of North Wales Police v. Evans [1982] 3 All ER 141(b) Family Law---Maintenance and Dowry Articles----Recovery of maintenance---Quantum---Scope---In family disputes, courts must determine maintenance based on credible evidence regarding financial circumstances and necessity---In the present case, High Court enhanced the maintenance allowance to Rs. 10,000 per month but did not remand the matter for further factual determination---Held, that while the enhancement of maintenance was justified based on evidence, the matter should have been remanded to the appellate court for a thorough re-evaluation.(c) Family Law---Recovery of Gold Ornaments----Evidentiary burden on spouse claiming recovery of dowry articles and gold ornaments---Scope---Where a spouse claims entitlement to gold ornaments, the burden is on them to establish ownership and wrongful retention by the other party---High Court reversed the appellate court’s decision and granted recovery of 04 tolas of gold without directing further inquiry into the matter---Held, that the issue required factual determination, and the High Court should have remanded the case for proper adjudication instead of making a direct substitution of findings.(d) Civil Procedure---Appellate Jurisdiction----Scope of appellate court’s review in family matters---High Court’s interference with appellate court’s findings---Where an appellate court has made a determination based on available evidence, the High Court should not interfere unless there is a clear case of misreading or non-consideration of material evidence---Held, that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own findings without remanding the matter for reconsideration.Cited Case:Nawaza v. Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1970 SC 391----- Disposition: Petition converted into an appeal and allowed. The matter remanded to the appellate court to decide the issue of maintenance and recovery of gold ornaments afresh, in light of the High Court’s observations, within three months.