Summary: The petitioner, Muhammad Tariq Sahi, challenges the Government of Punjab's decision to increase the reserve price of Block No.116-A South District Sargodha for mining by 500%. The petitioner alleges that this increase is without lawful authority and is motivated by mala fide intentions to prevent their participation in the bidding process.According to the respondents, the reserve price was determined by the Special Experts Committee, considering factors such as market trends and the sizes and bids of surrounding blocks. They argue that the petitioner has fully enjoyed the leased area and is now attempting to sabotage the legitimate auction process with a malicious petition.The Assistant Advocate General contends that the petitioner, in collaboration with existing lease holders, aims to maintain a regional monopoly over the sandstone business. The fixation of the reserve price is justified, and the petitioner's actions go against the fundamental right of other citizens to participate in the auction, as per Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan.The petitioner's counsel argues that despite multiple attempts, the auction could not be successful due to the exorbitant reserve price. They claim that if an auction fails several times, the matter should be sent back to the Special Experts Committee for a review of the reserve price.The court, in its decision, emphasizes that the fixation of the reserve price is within the prerogative of the government, and judicial scrutiny is limited. The court states that the petitioner has not established that the reserve price is so unreasonable that no prudent authority could have fixed it. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, leaving the option to refer the matter back to the Committee of Special Experts for a review if future auctions fail to meet the reserve price. ''Fixation of reserve price is prerogative of the concerned governmentdepartment and in this regard, neither any existing lessee nor anyprospective bidder can seek fixation of the reserve price of his own choice.There is no cavil to the proposition that while fixing reserve price, theexercise of discretion by the public authority must be just, fair andreasonable and any arbitrary, whimsical and capricious exercise of suchauthority is amenable to judicial scrutiny, however, the scope of jurisdictionunder Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973in that regard is very limited. For such a challenge to succeed in writjurisdiction, it is imperative for the petitioner to establish that the reserveprice fixed by the public functionaries is so unreasonable that no authority 4Writ Petition No.55800 of 2023with prudent mind could have fixed the same. This is also known as thewednesbury principle. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the casesof Messrs 3N-Lifemed Pharmaceuticals Vs. Government of Punjab throughSecretary Primary and Secondary Healthcare Department and others(2023 CLC 948) and Hajj Organizers Association of Pakistan throughAuthorised Officer and 11 others Vs. Federation of Pakistan throughSecretary Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony, Islamabadand 2 others (PLD 2020 Sindh 42)''

Summary: Bail allowed --- Petitioner, sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under section 337, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Kallar Syedan, District Rawalpindi. The prosecution alleged that a land dispute led to a violent incident where the petitioner and others inflicted injuries on individuals involved in the dispute.During the hearing on 20.12.2023, the petitioner's counsel argued innocence, claiming false implication with malicious intent. The defense contended that the incident, initially minor, was exaggerated with a fictitious medical report. The petitioner was accused of causing injuries during a confrontation related to a land dispute.The prosecution argued for dismissal, emphasizing prompt reporting of the crime to the police, specific naming of the petitioner in the FIR, and the absence of malice on the complainant's part. The court examined the records, revealing that the petitioner was accused of being part of a group that attempted to invade land, resulting in physical violence and injuries to multiple individuals.A crucial point of contention was the interpretation of the injury to one victim's shoulder as per Section 337-D PPC. The court scrutinized the medical opinion, noting discrepancies. The court clarified that for an offense under Section 337-D PPC, the injury must extend to the body cavity of the trunk. It examined various definitions and interpretations, ultimately concluding that the injury in question did not meet the criteria.In light of this, the court expressed concern over the erroneous medical opinion that led to the incarceration of a co-accused. While lenient towards the medical officer, the court urged the Secretary of Health, Punjab, to sensitize medical officers about the importance of their opinions in criminal cases.Consequently, the court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, confirming the interim bail granted earlier, provided he furnished fresh bail bonds.

Summary: Noise Pollution ---- Industrial units in residential area:Industrial noise is primarily a byproduct of the machinery, equipment, and processes utilized in these industries. The main characteristics of industrial noise are as follows:i) Sound Intensity: Industrial environments can produce high levels of noise due to the presence of machinery, engines, and heavy equipment. The noise can be loud enough to cause hearing damage if not properly controlled.ii) Frequency: The range of frequencies in industrial noise can vary, but it often includes components of both low and high frequency, depending on the sources.iii) Duration: Industrial noise can be continuous or intermittent, depending on the specific processes and activities underway.iv) Impact: Excessive industrial noise can have negative effects on the health and well- being of workers and nearby residents.v) Prolonged exposure to high levels of industrial noise can lead to hearing loss, stress, sleep disturbances, and other health issues.Keeping in view the above factors, as a short term remedial, the respondent No.7 along with other owners of the industrial units in the area shall be directed by the District Administration /concerned authority to remove/ shift his unit outside the residential area but on long term the Provincial Government is required to notify a particular area for the said purpose but till shifting of the industrial units already installed, the government functionaries shall have a check upon these units to minimize the nuisance hazards by visit of the residential area to have continue check for the use of soundproofing materials such as soundproof blankets and panels, the implementation of technical controls to reduce noise at the source, equipment maintenance to minimize sound emissions, and the construction of noise barriers to protect nearby communities from excessive noise. Installing isolators and vibration dampers can minimize the transmission of solid-borne noise and vibrations through structural elements. Treating industrial noise sources at the source is one of the most effective ways to control noise pollution. Manufacturers are increasingly integrating noise reduction technologies into the design of their equipment and machinery. Optimizing industrial processes can lead to quieter operations and overall improved efficiency. By investing in quieter technologies, regularly upgrading their equipment, and soundproofing their machines with acoustic covers, industries can proactively address noise pollution issues. Respondent No.7 shall apply to the agency for Environmental Assessment Impact Report and respondent No.2 shall also issue notice to the other industrial units/ factories working in the area/spot so that one may not be treated differently when the other units are also functional in the area. Regular inspections, maintenance checks and equipment upgrades are mandatory which shall be done on regularly basis. The potential hazards posed to residents cannot be overlooked. Only through striking a balance between economic growth and residents? welfare can we create thriving, safe and sustainable communities for the future.

Summary: Suit will be filed where wife ordinarily resides ---- ''Pakistani courts have jurisdiction in cases where either party resides or has resided in Pakistan, and specifically, in cases of marriage dissolution or dower, where the wife ordinarily resides.'' --- West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, especially Rule 6 --- The court referred to Black?s Law Dictionary and Dicey's "Conflict of Laws" to define "ordinarily resides," emphasizing that it does not necessarily mean permanent residence. The court noted that the respondent, though living in the USA, had substantial connections to Pakistan. --- The court found that the Family Court?s preliminary decree for dissolution of marriage by way of Khula and the subsequent proceedings were in compliance with the legal and Islamic principles. It noted that the respondent?s withdrawal of the suit for the remaining clauses rendered the preliminary decree final. --- The judgment referred to Islamic law, specifically the concept of Khula, where a woman can seek dissolution of marriage. It cited Surah Baqra from the Quran to explain the principles governing Khula. --- The Supreme Court agreed with the reasoning and conclusions of the lower courts, finding no legal or factual errors. The petitions were dismissed as meritless, and leave to appeal was refused.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a civil appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Mirpur, on 30.01.2017. Zameer Ahmed initially filed a suit of declaration cum recovery of possession along with a perpetual and mandatory injunction in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mirpur, asserting that he purchased a piece of land measuring 01 kanal 02 marlas through a sale deed dated 29.09.1998. The respondents, having a share in the shamilat-e-deh land, objected to the sale and sought correction in the settlement record. The Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit in favor of Zameer Ahmed, but the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, dismissing the suit. This led to the current appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters of correction in the revenue record. 2- Whether the appellant successfully proved his ownership and the illegality of the rectification proceedings conducted by the revenue officers. 3- Whether the rectification proceedings interfered with the rights of the appellant. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court considered whether the civil court had jurisdiction under Section 53 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, which allows for suits for declaration regarding entries in the record of rights. The court emphasized that Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 bars civil courts from matters concerning correction of revenue entries, except where these corrections interfere with the rights of individuals. The appellant claimed ownership based on a sale deed and challenged the rectification proceedings. However, the appellant had already exhausted the proper fora within the revenue hierarchy without success, which should have resolved the matter. The court found that the appellant failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that the rectification proceedings were conducted with malice or that they interfered with his ownership rights. The Senior Civil Judge's reliance on the statement about the defective "Aks Latha" was not sufficient to challenge the legal proceedings conducted by the revenue hierarchy. The Additional District Judge had correctly reversed the Senior Civil Judge’s decision, as the appellant did not substantiate his claims with convincing evidence. The appeal filed by Zameer Ahmed was dismissed, affirming the judgment of the Additional District Judge. The court held that the appellant failed to prove his claims against the rectification proceedings conducted by the revenue officers and that the civil court did not have jurisdiction over matters already addressed by the revenue hierarchy. ----Citations/Precedents: Hakim Khan v. Nazir Ahmed Luqmani (1992 SCMR 1832) Case law reported as 1996 SCMR 78 Government of Sindh vs. Muhammad Juman and another (2009 SCMR 1407) Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry and another vs. Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Production, Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 2004 S.C. 413)

Summary: Procedure for trial of offence under section 180 of PPC, upon refusal to sign the charge sheet.

Summary: If any conversation is recorded through mobile phone and converted into Compact Disc (CD), then without production of the mobile phone as well as forensic analysis of the conversation and merely by producing CD, said conversation cannot be proved.

Summary: Against order of acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. criminal revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. is not competent. Similarly, writ petition against order of acquittal is also not competent in the light of section 417(2), Cr.P.C.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----S. 130---Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, jurisdiction of---Adjudication of matter-in-issue---Passing judgment without giving reasons---Effect---Department filed Reference contending that the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR) dismissed their appeal in a mechanical way and failed to consider the applicability and scope of various/relevant provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, in the context of issue-in-question(gains bagged through sale of properties)---Validity---Relevant/operative paragraph of the impugned order showed that the ATIR abdicated its jurisdiction and allowed appeal simplicitor while referring to an earlier order having been previously passed by it (ATIR) ,without extending reasons to establish alleged similarity of facts / causes giving "considered opinion that the ATIR had already decided the same issue of two members of AOP through a very well-reasoned and speaking order---Thus, impugned order was devoid of plausible reasoning and patently ambiguous; no explanation was found to understand the meaning or rational of the expression "two members of AOP"---Evidently, effect of various provisions of law, in the context of allegations, was not dilated upon, let alone considered---ATIR was required to consider the scope of various sections of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Fair and proper adjudication of matter-in-issue was missing---High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter for decision afresh on the Appeal of the taxpayer---Reference application, filed by Department, was allowed accordingly. Muqtedir Akhtar Shabir and Mirza Shahryar Beg for Applicant-department.