Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002:----Ss. 23, 37----Exclusive license for Cable Television Network under MMDS System----Validity----Petitioner was granted an exclusive MMDS license in 1995 and was subsequently allocated frequency by the then Pakistan Wireless Board----After legislative changes, PEMRA Ordinance, 2002, and Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, established new regulatory frameworks----Held, previous licenses were subject to renewal under the new laws, and the claim of a perpetual license was not sustainable----PEMRA had the exclusive authority to regulate broadcasting and distribution services, and monopolies in the media sector were not permissible----Reliance placed on Mag Entertainment (Pvt.) Ltd v. Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd (2018 SCMR 1807).(b) Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996:----Ss. 21(5), 21(6), 42----License continuation and frequency allocation----Petitioner failed to apply for the renewal and continuation of the license within the mandatory period after the enactment of the PTA Act, 1996----Held, licenses granted before the PTA Act were subject to revalidation and modification per new regulatory frameworks----Since petitioner did not comply with the renewal requirement, its authorization lapsed, and the allocated frequency could not be claimed in perpetuity----Reliance placed on Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) v. Southern Networks Limited (2023 SCMR 1348).(c) Frequency Allocation Board (FAB):----Allocation of radio spectrum----Scope of jurisdiction----Held, FAB was established under the PTA Act, 1996, to manage and allocate frequencies, taking over the functions of the Pakistan Wireless Board----Petitioner continued using the assigned spectrum without obtaining renewed authorization from FAB, violating statutory requirements----Frequency allocation was mandatory under PEMRA Rules, and no license could be granted without prior approval from FAB----Reliance placed on PLD 1998 SC 161 (Malik Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan).(d) Constitutional Law--------Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel----Applicability in licensing disputes----Petitioner contended that the government was estopped from revoking or modifying its MMDS license based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel----Held, promissory estoppel does not apply against legislative or sovereign functions of the State, particularly when statutory provisions mandate compliance with new regulations----Government agencies have the authority to amend or revoke licenses in public interest, and no perpetual right can be claimed----Reliance placed on Pakistan v. Salahuddin (PLD 1991 SC 546) and Landirenzo Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2013 MLD 601).(e) Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) Rules, 2009:----Ss. 6, 9(4), 23----Requirement for frequency allocation----Held, licensing under PEMRA requires frequency allocation from FAB as per Rule 9(4)----PEMRA cannot grant licenses unless frequency allocation is duly approved, and no entity can claim exclusive rights over the frequency spectrum----Rule 23 explicitly prohibits monopolies in media ownership, ensuring open and fair competition----Reliance placed on Mag Entertainment (Pvt.) Ltd v. Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. (2018 SCMR 1807).----Cited Cases:Mag Entertainment (Pvt.) Ltd v. Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd (2018 SCMR 1807)Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) v. Southern Networks Limited (2023 SCMR 1348)Pakistan v. Salahuddin (PLD 1991 SC 546)PLD 1998 SC 161 (Malik Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan)Landirenzo Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2013 MLD 601)----Disposition:Petition dismissed.Petitioner directed to apply for a fresh MMDS license under Rule 6 of PEMRA Rules, 2009, and obtain frequency allocation from FAB within 15 days.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: Petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Federal Ombudsperson for Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace. Petitioner contended that the appointment was illegal as respondent No. 1 was not a judge of the High Court nor qualified to be appointed as such, as required under Section 7(2) of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. Respondents argued that the appointment was made under Section 21 of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, which has an overriding effect over the 2010 Act. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appointment of respondent No. 1 was made in violation of the law. 2- Whether Section 21 of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, overrides Section 7(2) of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Appointment under Different Sections: The court found that respondent No. 1 was appointed under Section 21 of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, which allows for the appointment of a woman with at least ten years of experience in matters relating to the protection of women against harassment. --Overriding Effect of the 2013 Act: Section 24 of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, provides it with an overriding effect, meaning it prevails over conflicting provisions in other laws, including the 2010 Act. --Petitioner's Argument Invalid: The petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality in the appointment under the applicable law, nor did he challenge the qualifications of respondent No. 1 under the 2013 Act. The court dismissed the writ petition as meritless, imposing costs of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioner for filing a frivolous petition and wasting the court's time. ----Citations/Precedents: Jawad Ahmad Mir vs. Prof. Dr. Imtiaz Ali Khan (2023 SCMR 162): Outlined conditions for issuing a writ of quo warranto. Ayaz Ahmed Khan vs. Federation of Pakistan (2021 PLC(C.S.) 1394): Discussed the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction and the importance of a petitioner's conduct. Dr. Muhammad Naseem Khan vs. Dr. Shahzad Ali Khan (2023 PLC (C.S.) Note 8). Dr. Azim-ur-Rehman Khan Meo vs. Government of Sindh (2004 SCMR 1299).

Summary: Sections 23, 58-A, 59 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019. Section 46 of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.i) Jurisdiction of special Courts established under Act of 1997 and 2019, to try offences under the corresponding Act.ii) Partial repeal of the Act of 1997 by section 59 of the Act of 2019 to the extent of province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.iii) Section 58-A of Act of 2019 provides for continuation and validation of actions taken, proceedings commenced and things done by ANF.iv) Prospective and retrospective operation of law.v) Curative statutes and pending proceedings. Amendments in procedural law can be given retrospective effect.vi) The word " proceedings" include every step taken towards further progress of a cause in court or tribunal from its commencement till disposal.

Summary: The case revolves around the delimitation of territorial constituencies for upcoming elections to the National Assembly and Provincial Assembly of the Province.The Election Commission constituted a committee to prepare a draft proposal for the delimitation, and after the publication of the draft, residents and voter members filed objections. The objections were subsequently discarded by the Election Commission, leading to petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution.The judgment emphasizes the constitutional role of the Election Commission, citing Article 218, which outlines the Commission's duty to organize and conduct elections honestly, justly, fairly, and in accordance with the law, guarding against corrupt practices. The judgment cites legal definitions of terms like "honestly," "justly," and "fairly."Furthermore, the judgment delves into the Elections Act, 2017, and the Election Rules, 2017, specifically focusing on Section 17, which mandates the Election Commission to delimit territorial constituencies. Section 20 outlines the principles of delimitation, considering factors like population distribution, geographical compactness, and administrative boundaries.The judgment notes the petitioners' objections related to the exclusion and inclusion of specific areas in constituencies. It stresses the Election Commission's responsibility to address genuine objections properly. The court rejects the argument that mere inconvenience should be the basis for delimitation, asserting that suitability and proximity should be determined based on various factors.In conclusion, the judgment supports the Election Commission's authority in conducting delimitation, emphasizing the importance of adhering to constitutional and legal principles while ensuring fairness and transparency in the electoral process. --- ''In order to delimit territorial constituencies for upcoming elections to the National Assembly and the Provincial Assembly of the Province, the Election Commission constituted a committee for preparing a draft proposal for the delimitation of the constituencies in question (PP-8 and PP-9) and on publication of draft, the petitioners being the residents and voter members of the constituencies filed their objections to the Election Commission but the objections were discarded by way of order dated 26th November, 2023. The Election Commission is the creation of the "Constitution". Part VIII of the "Constitution" deals with Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commission. Article 218 of the "Constitution" lays down the composition of the Election Commission and its duties prime of which is to hold election to both Houses of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), Provincial Assemblies and such other public offices as may be specified by law. In the case of WORKERS' PARTY PAKISTAN through Athar Hussain, Advocate, General Secretary and 6 others v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 2 others (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 681) In order to amend, consolidate and unify laws relating to the conduct of elections and matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto, the Elections Act, 2017 was promulgated. The matter in issue since relates to the delimitation of the constituencies, so instead of pondering upon any other aspect, it would be apposite to have a direct recourse to Chapter-III of the "Act", which deals with the subject. Section 17 mandates the Election Commission to delimit territorial constituencies for elections to the National Assembly, each Provincial Assembly and to the local governments in accordance with the provisions of the "Constitution", the "Act", the Rules and the applicable local government law. Section 19 specifies the manner of delimitation of constituencies whereas section 20 lays down the principles of delimitation.''

Summary: Background:This case pertains to a series of land acquisition disputes, originating from proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for lands in Nowshera District. The Government of Pakistan, through its Ministry of Defence, and various local administrative bodies sought to acquire approximately 3413 acres initially leased in 1955 and later aimed for permanent acquisition in 1977. Protracted legal and administrative processes ensued, culminating in a Supreme Court judgment in 2018 that set compensation rates. However, difficulties in fund allocation for compensation led the acquiring authorities to attempt withdrawing from the acquisition in 2019, which prompted landowners to challenge this decision.----Issues:The central issue was whether the appellants/petitioners had the legal authority to withdraw from the land acquisition after the process had been effectively completed and possession taken, under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court, led by Justice Shahid Waheed, ruled that once possession of the land had been taken, the acquisition was complete, and the appellants/petitioners no longer retained the right to withdraw from the acquisition. The Court found that the attempt to withdraw was not only legally unfounded but also acted in bad faith towards the landowners who had been embroiled in decades of legal struggle. The Court dismissed all related appeals and upheld the High Court's decision to quash the notification of withdrawal, emphasizing that the notification issued under Section 48 in October 2019 was invalid, illegal, and without jurisdiction.----Citations/Precedents:Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly Section 48, which discusses the conditions under which acquisition can be withdrawn.M/s Dewan Salman Fiber Ltd. and others v. Government of NWFP (PLD 2004 SC 441), and Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another v. Farzand Begum and others (2022 SCMR 1383), which clarify the implications of taking possession under the Land Acquisition Act.Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Sri Avinash Sharma (AIR 1970 SC 1576), for interpretation of related administrative actions under the law.B.N Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat (AIR 1975 SC 1767), cited for understanding the nature of possession under the Act.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a first-class state subject of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and holder of an M.Sc. in Statistics, filed a writ petition challenging the lack of a reserved quota for differently-abled candidates in the subject of Statistics in the Public Service Commission (PSC) advertisement dated 06.09.2020. The petitioner had previously attempted to secure a lecturer position in Statistics but was not considered due to the absence of a reserved quota for differently-abled persons. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondents were required to reserve a quota for differently-abled candidates in the subject of Statistics. 2- Whether the failure to reserve a quota for differently-abled candidates constitutes discrimination. 3- Whether the petitioner, who is over the age limit, should be granted age relaxation. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Quota Requirement: The court found that the respondents failed to advertise the post of Lecturer in Statistics for differently-abled candidates despite the availability of such a quota for other subjects. This omission was deemed discriminatory. --Discrimination: The court held that the absence of a reserved quota for differently-abled candidates in the subject of Statistics constituted discriminatory treatment. The respondents were required to reserve quotas for differently-abled candidates in all subjects, including Statistics. --Age Relaxation: The court noted that the petitioner’s age should be considered from the date she approached the court. The time spent in litigation should be excluded when calculating the age limit for applying against the post. Given the petitioner's circumstances, the court directed age relaxation as a special case. The court accepted the writ petition and directed the respondents to reconsider the matter, create a quota for differently-abled candidates in the subject of Statistics, and send a de-novo requisition to the PSC within two months. ----Citations/Precedents: 2012 SCR 115 2016 SCMR 1417 2010 SCMR 1630 2004 SCMR 1001

Summary: Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 --- Section 30 of Evacuee Trust Property Board Act, 1975 read with Rule 7(i) Chapter III of the Scheme 1977 Lease of the Trust Property for 99 years ? Section 9 of Wafaqi Mohtasib Ordinance, 1983- jurisdiction and power of Mohtasib --- A minister has no authority under evacuee laws to pass recommendation for lease for a term of 99 years of any evacuee property to any individual--- Wafaqi Mohtasib has no jurisdiction to pass any direction to any department to comply with any recommendation made by a Minster---- An order passed without jurisdiction would be void ab-initio and any subsequent order/ superstructure built on that order would also collapse --- Writ petition allowed.