Summary: Alleged abduction of the Petitioner’s husband occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the Writ Petition was not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 22-A, 22-B & 154—Registration of FIR—Scope of powers of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace—Held, the Justice of Peace is required only to determine whether the facts disclosed in an application constitute a cognizable offence; he cannot undertake a detailed inquiry or evaluate evidence on merits—Where the facts prima facie disclose commission of an offence, the Justice of Peace must direct the police to record the complainant’s statement under S.154 Cr.P.C.—In the present case, the petitioner alleged that the proposed accused induced him into a property transaction for three plots, received Rs.750,000 as earnest money, and neither transferred the plots nor refunded the amount—Verification revealed that the plots stood in the names of third parties, not the proposed accused—Such circumstances disclosed a cognizable offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust—Impugned order of the Justice of Peace dismissing the application was set aside and direction issued for registration of FIR—Reliance placed on Syed Qamber Ali Shah v. Province of Sindh (2024 SCMR 1123). (b) Criminal law—Fraudulent property transaction—Cognizable offence—Where accused entered into sale agreement for property not owned by them and received advance payment without transfer or refund, ingredients of cheating and misappropriation are satisfied—Registration of FIR is mandatory once cognizable offence is made out; police cannot refuse registration on ground of pendency of civil proceedings. (g) Disposition— Writ petition accepted; order of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace dated 02.11.2024 set aside—Respondent SHO directed to register FIR against proposed accused Muhammad Rizwan Shoukat and Syed Aqeel Bukhari and record petitioner’s statement under S.154 Cr.P.C.

Summary: (a) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 ----S. 18—Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs)—Impounding of CNICs—Scope—Authority of NADRA—Held, NADRA is vested with power under S.18 of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000 to impound, cancel, or confiscate CNICs obtained through misrepresentation, fraud, or concealment of material facts—Petitioners’ CNICs were digitally impounded in the “confirmed alien” category after verification revealed that their brothers, one a registered Afghan refugee holding a POR card and the other having voluntarily surrendered his CNIC during the amnesty scheme, were non-nationals—The authority’s action was lawful and within jurisdiction. (b) Citizenship—Determination of nationality—Held, the right of citizenship must first be adjudicated under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951—Only after determination that a person is a Pakistani citizen can NADRA be directed to issue or restore CNIC—Where the issue of nationality is disputed, affected persons must approach the Federal Government or the competent forum constituted under notification dated 19-04-2017 to produce pre-1979 documentary evidence in support of their claim. (c) Constitutional jurisdiction—Writ petition—Alternate remedy—Where factual controversy exists regarding nationality and CNIC issuance, and proceedings are pending before the District Level Committee constituted by the Federal Government, direct invocation of constitutional jurisdiction is not maintainable—Petitioners relegated to alternate remedy before said forum. (g) Disposition— Writ petition disposed of; petitioners directed to produce documents prior to 1979 before the Federal Government under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 for determination of their citizenship status; NADRA to act thereafter in accordance with law.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Arts. 9 & 199—Right to life—Pension and annual increases—Scope—Held, pensionary benefits, including annual increases, are an integral component of the right to life guaranteed under Art. 9 of the Constitution—Even where an organization’s service rules are non-statutory, denial or delay of pension constitutes violation of fundamental rights and principles of natural justice—High Court can exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 where the act of a public or autonomous body in a service matter is arbitrary, unreasonable, or inconsistent with law—Reliance placed on Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority v. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed (2013 SCMR 1707), Muhammad Rafi v. Federation of Pakistan (2016 SCMR 2146), and Nasir Kamal v. Federation of Pakistan (2021 PLC (C.S.) 1226). (b) Associated Press of Pakistan Corporation Ordinance, 2002 ----S. 21—Nature of service rules—Though rules framed under the APPC Ordinance are non-statutory, the obligation to disburse pensions and apply government-announced annual increases remains binding on the Corporation—Non-payment of annual increments for 2015–2017 held unjustified; the Board’s linkage of pension increases with pending financial rules and funding approval was not a valid ground to withhold the same—Respondents themselves acknowledged that arrears remain unpaid solely due to lack of funds and have sought allocation of Rs.400 million from Finance Division. (c) Administrative law—Exercise of jurisdiction—Maintainability—Even in cases involving autonomous bodies like the Associated Press of Pakistan, constitutional jurisdiction lies where the issue pertains to payment of pensionary dues and impacts a fundamental right—Availability of alternate remedies not a bar where the violation involves basic entitlements of livelihood and dignity of retired employees. (g) Disposition— Writ petition disposed of—Respondents directed to pay arrears of annual pension increases for years 2015, 2016, and 2017 to the petitioner, subject to availability of funds upon approval by Finance Division.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Arts. 15 & 199—Freedom of movement—Blocking of passport—Scope—Held, every citizen has the fundamental right to enter, remain in, and move freely throughout Pakistan, and to travel abroad subject only to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest—Blocking of a citizen’s passport without notice, hearing, or lawful authority amounts to violation of due process, liberty, and freedom of movement guaranteed by the Constitution—Petitioner’s passport was blocked without issuance of any show-cause notice or order, which constituted arbitrary exercise of power and was void ab initio. (b) Passports Act, 1974 and Passports Rules, 2021 ----R. 22—Passport Control List (PCL)—Authority of Federal Government—Interpretation—Under R.22 of the Passports Rules, 2021, the power to regulate departure from and entry into Pakistan, and to maintain the Passport Control List, vests exclusively in the Federal Government, i.e., the Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively, and not in individual agencies such as FIA—Any blocking or inclusion of a person’s name in the PCL without Cabinet approval or due process is unlawful—Reliance placed on Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2016 SC 808), Controller General of Accounts v. Fazil Ahmad (2021 SCMR 800), Government of Sindh v. Dr. Nadeem Rizvi (2020 SCMR 1), and Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan (2024 MLD 1020 Islamabad). (c) Administrative law—Exercise of statutory power—When a statute prescribes a specific mode for doing an act, that mode must be followed; any deviation vitiates the action—Blocking of passport without prior notice, reasons, or opportunity of hearing held to be contrary to law and legislative intent—Reliance placed on Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan (2024 MLD 1020), Rasikh Ellahi v. Federation of Pakistan (2024 YLR 2616), Farah Mazhar v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2022 Lahore 119), and Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2019 Islamabad 316). (g) Disposition— Writ petition allowed—Blocking of petitioner’s passport declared illegal—Respondents directed to forthwith unblock Passport No. HF2740613. ---"Blocking of the Petitioner’s Passport violates his fundamental rights to due process, liberty, life, and freedom of movement, all of which are guaranteed by the Constitution. It is a well-established principle of law that when the law mandates a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done accordingly, otherwise, it constitutes non-compliance with the legislative intent. In this regard reliance is placed upon Dr. Shireen M. Mazari Versus FOP etc., 2024 MLD 1020, Rasikh Ellahi Versus FOP etc., 2024 YLR 2616, Tariq Shafi Versus FOP etc., W.P. No. 224/2024 , Faisal Maqbool Sheikh Versus FOP etc., Fawad Ahmed Versus FOP etc., WP 2129/2024, Sadaf Sharjeel Versus NAB etc., 2022 YLR 2441, Farah Mazhar Versus FOP etc., PLD 2022 Lahore 119, Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari Versus FOP etc., PLD 2019 Islamabad 316, Dr. Joseph Wilson Versus FOP etc., 2017 PCrLJ 1569, Mahboob Ali Abro Versus Ayan Ali etc., 2016 PSC 938 and Sohail Latif etc. Versus FOP etc., PLD 2008 Lahore 341. "

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Arts. 4, 25 & 199—Fundamental rights—Due process and fair trial—Scope—Invocation of constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199—Held, although the petitioner invoked Art.199 of the Constitution read with S.24 C.P.C., no violation of a fundamental right was established; however, where procedural obstacles between different Sessions Divisions create a judicial impasse, the High Court may exercise its supervisory powers to ensure justice, fair trial, and avoidance of conflicting judgments—Petition rightly treated as a transfer application under S.24 C.P.C. in the interest of justice. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----S.24—Transfer and consolidation of suits—Power of High Court—Where two civil suits pending before separate courts in different Sessions Divisions involved identical parties, the same negotiable instrument, and common factual and legal questions, their consolidation was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting findings—Leave to defend having been granted in the summary suit under O.XXXVII, R.7, C.P.C., the case assumed the character of a regular civil suit, making consolidation legally permissible—Reliance placed on Zahid Zaman Khan v. Khan Afsar (PLD 2016 SC 409) and First Women Bank Ltd. v. High Court of Sindh (2004 SCMR 108). (c) Order XXXVII, Rule 7—Summary suit converted into regular civil suit—Effect—Once leave to defend is granted, proceedings under O.XXXVII, C.P.C. lose their summary character and stand on the same procedural footing as an ordinary civil suit—Hence, consolidation with another civil suit arising from the same transaction is procedurally valid. (d) Specific Relief Act, 1877 ----S.39—Cancellation of instrument—Where one suit seeks recovery on a negotiable instrument and the other seeks cancellation of that same instrument and underlying agreements, both matters are interdependent, and joint trial ensures consistency and prevents irreconcilable findings. (g) Disposition— Writ petition treated as transfer application under S.24 C.P.C.—Allowed—Civil Suit “Saqib Ali Khan v. Shuja Mukhtar Kiyani” pending before Civil Judge-XVIII, Islamabad (East) ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to Additional District Judge-IX, Islamabad (West), where connected summary suit “Shuja Mukhtar Kiyani v. Saqib Ali Khan” is pending—Both suits to be consolidated and tried jointly by the said court in accordance with law.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 561-A—Inherent powers of High Court—Superdari of vehicle—Scope—Petition under S.561-A Cr.P.C. was maintainable where lower courts had dismissed the request for superdari despite absence of any rival claimant or criminal history of the vehicle—Held, when a vehicle is not reported stolen nor claimed by any third party, and is not required for evidentiary purposes, its continued custody with the police serves no purpose and results in depreciation and wastage—Courts are empowered to release such property on superdari to the bona fide purchaser subject to appropriate security—Reliance placed on Lal Zada v. The State (2011 YLR 377). (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 420, 468 & 471—Forgery and cheating—Vehicle allegedly having tampered engine/chassis number—Where forensic report indicated tampering but ownership documents, registration record, and absence of rival claim established that petitioner was a bona fide purchaser for value, superdari could not be denied merely on suspicion—Vehicle’s custody to remain with petitioner until decision of criminal case, subject to production when required by trial court. (c) Criminal law—Custody of property—Principle—Courts should avoid keeping seized vehicles in police custody for indefinite periods as it causes natural decay and financial loss; interim custody should be granted to rightful claimant with safeguards ensuring availability of property for trial. (g) Disposition— Petition allowed—Impugned orders dated 26.02.2025 and 08.03.2025 set aside—Subject vehicle (Toyota Corolla, ordered to be released to petitioner on superdari upon furnishing surety bonds of Rs.400,000/- to satisfaction of trial court—Petitioner restrained from selling or transferring vehicle and directed to produce it whenever required—Order not to prejudice rights of any rival claimant with superior title.

Summary: (a) Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) ----O. VI, R. 17—Amendment of pleadings—Principles—Scope—Amendment of written statement—Held, amendment may be permitted at any stage where necessary for determining the real question in controversy, but cannot be allowed to introduce new facts, change the nature of defence, or fill lacunas left earlier—Belated attempts made after substantial progress of trial are not maintainable—Reliance placed on Mst. Imam Hussain v. Sher Ali Shah (1994 SCMR 2293), Abdul Rashid v. Abdul Salam (1984 MLD 167), and Syed Muhammad Ali v. Syed Dabir Ali (2016 SCMR 2164). (b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) ----S. 12-A—Expeditious disposal of family suits—Family Court required to conclude proceedings within six months of institution—Applications seeking amendment of pleadings at advanced stages frustrate the legislative intent of speedy adjudication and cannot be entertained absent compelling justification. (c) Family law—Amendment of written statement—Where defendant sought to introduce entirely new assertions after evidence had been partly recorded, such amendment would alter the nature of defence and prejudice the opposing party—Court rightly declined permission as the move appeared designed to delay proceedings and fill omissions in the earlier pleadings. (g) Disposition— Writ petition dismissed—Impugned order of Family Court dated 07.01.2025 upheld as well-reasoned and consistent with law—No illegality, irregularity, or violation of rights found.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 435, 439 & 497(5)—Revision—Cancellation of bail—Principles—Scope—Where order granting bail was passed without due appreciation of material evidence and the accused was found involved in multiple similar criminal cases, the revisional or appellate court is justified in cancelling bail—Held, discretion to grant bail is not absolute; it must be exercised judiciously and cannot be arbitrary or perverse—If the order of bail is obtained through suppression of material facts or where subsequent circumstances show habitual criminal conduct, bail may rightly be recalled—Reliance placed on Shameel Ahmed v. The State (2009 SCMR 174). (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 420, 468, 471 & 489-F—Cheating, forgery, and dishonestly issuing cheques—Accused allegedly defrauded complainant of Rs.3,500,000/- through sale of fake property documents and was also found involved in several other similar cases—Held, circumstances justified cancellation of bail as likelihood of repetition of offence and absconsion was evident. (c) Criminal law—Bail—Principle—Grant of bail is discretionary but not unfettered—Court must consider antecedents, conduct, and likelihood of misuse of liberty; where the accused is prima facie a habitual offender, bail cannot be sustained on grounds of leniency. (d) Practice and procedure—Expeditious trial—Direction—Trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously as charge had already been framed and no prosecution witness examined—Complainant also directed to cooperate by appearing for evidence; failure to do so shall entitle accused to seek fresh relief before High Court. (g) Disposition— Criminal Revision dismissed—Order of Additional Sessions Judge dated 02.07.2024 recalling bail maintained—Trial court directed to expedite proceedings; liberty granted to accused to move fresh petition if complainant defaults in appearance.

Summary: a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ----Art. 199—Maintainability of writ petition—Service in autonomous body—Non-statutory rules—Principle of master and servant—Held, where the terms and conditions of employment are governed by non-statutory rules of an autonomous institution, relationship remains that of master and servant and writ jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked—Remedy, if any, lies through a civil suit for damages—Reliance placed on Muhammad Islam v. Quaid-e-Azam University (Civil Appeal No.1504 of 2013; Civil Review Petition No.75 of 2016), Principal Cadet College Kohat v. Muhammad Shoaib (PLD 1984 SC 170), Anwar Hussain v. ADBP (PLD 1984 SC 194), and University of Punjab v. Sardar Ali (1992 SCMR 1093). (b) National University of Modern Languages Ordinance (2000) ----Ss. 4, 27 & 28—Termination of service—University autonomy—Respondent university being an autonomous statutory corporation vested with powers to appoint and remove employees through its Board of Governors—Termination approved after repeated reminders and show-cause notice for absence from duty—No violation of mandatory provisions or denial of natural justice found. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ----Art. 10-A—Right to fair trial—Scope—Where employee repeatedly ignored lawful directions to resume duty and failed to respond to notices issued under the applicable service regulations, plea of denial of fair hearing or violation of Article 10-A was untenable. (d) Laches—Unexplained delay—Petition filed nearly three years after dismissal of departmental appeal—Held, claim was barred by doctrine of laches—Delay fatal to maintainability of constitutional petition. (e) Service law—University teacher—Study leave—Extension—Discretion of competent authority—Where employee overstayed study leave abroad without sanctioned extension, continuation of absence constituted misconduct warranting termination—No vested right to automatic extension of leave. (g) Disposition— Writ petition dismissed—Termination Notification No.ML-10-4/2000-Admin-645 dated 23.02.2017 upheld as lawful—Petitioner’s remedy, if any, lies before Civil Court for damages under master-and-servant principles.