Summary: Pending

Summary: (a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)- -Ss. 18, 19, 20 & 21-Land acquisition-Reference to Court-Pre-requisites-Conditions mentioned under sections 18 to 21 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act') have to be fulfilled before the Collector is empowered to make the reference, and then alone the Court has any jurisdiction to entertain the reference-Matter (of landowner seeking enhancement for compensation of his land) goes to Court only upon a reference made by the Collector-It is only after such a reference is made that the Court is empowered to determine the objections made by a claimant to the award-In fact, it is the order of reference which provides the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Court to decide the objections referred to it-Section 18(1) of the Act does not authorise or permit or provide for a person aggrieved, to make an application directly to the Court. The appellant (land owner), after having received partial compensation directly filed an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act') in the Court of District Judge, praying therein to enhance the compensation of land, by setting aside the award announced by the Land Acquisition Collector. The District Judge entertained this application, registered it as a suit, and proceeded with its trial. Question was whether it was open to the land owner-appellant to have directly made an application under section 18 of the Act before the District Judge. There are certain conditions which have to be fulfilled before the Collector is empowered to make the reference, and then alone the Court has any jurisdiction to entertain the reference. These conditions are: (a) A written application should be made before the Collector; (b) The person applying should be one interested in the subject matter of the reference, but who does not accept the award; (c) The grounds of objection as to the measurement, or the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested should be stated in the application; and (d) The application should be within the period prescribed under the provisos (a) and (b) to section 18 of the Act. Above are all matters of substance, which may be conveniently called jurisdictional facts, and their compliance is a condition precedent to the exercise of the power of reference under section 18 of the Act. The matter goes to Court only upon a reference made by the Collector. It is only after such a reference is made that the Court is empowered to determine the objections made by a claimant to the award. In fact, it is the order of reference which provides the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Court to decide the objections referred to it. The Court is bound by the reference and cannot widen the scope of its jurisdiction or decide matters which are not referred to it. It is thus, not within the domain of the Court to entertain any application under the Act pro interesse suo (that is, according to his interest) or in the nature thereof. Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahavi Samiti Ltd. v. Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran and others AIR 2003 SC 2302; Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdhry and others AIR 2007 SC 215 and The Land Acquisition Collector, Pak-Arab Refinery Limited and others v. Khan (deceased) and others 2019 MLD 968 ref. Remedy by filing an application under the Act directly to the Court of District Judge was clearly misconceived, inasmuch as section 18(1) of the Act does not authorise or permit or provide for a person aggrieved, to make an application directly to the Court, and the Trial Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever to decide the points arising in the application; therefore, the proceedings of the District Judge were void ab-initio. Appeal was dismissed. (b) Jurisdiction- -Principle-Whenever jurisdiction is given by a statute and such jurisdiction is only given upon certain specified terms contained therein, it is a universal principle that those terms should be complied with in order to create and raise the jurisdiction, and if they are not complied with, the jurisdiction does not arise. Nusserwanjee Pestonjee and others v. Meer Mynoodeen Khan Wullud (1885) 6 MIA 134 and Mansab Ali v. Amir and others PLD 1971 SC 124 ref. (c) Administration of justice- -Purpose of law is to settle down and not to devise means to multiply contest between the parties.

Summary: (a) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance (IV of 2001)- Muhammad Nisar v. Izhar Ahmed Shaikh and others PLD 2014 SC 347 and Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 SCMR 1064 ref. (b) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance (IV of 2001)-

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 184(3)-Constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution-Scope-Private complaint/ grievance-Alternate remedy, availability of-Application under Article 184(3) of the Constitution filed by the applicant before the Supreme Court leveling serious allegations against the personnel of Inter Services Intelligence ('ISI') and Pakistan Rangers (Punjab) of misusing their office, and committing crimes against the applicant and his family-Maintainability-Nature of a case filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution is different from other cases, for a number of reasons-Firstly, the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution exercises original power, and whenever original power is exercised it must be done cautiously-Secondly, where there exists other forum(s) to attend to the same it is best that they first do so-Thirdly, against the decision of a High Court appeals may come before the Supreme Court under Article 185 of the Constitution-Fourthly, direct intervention by the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution may adversely affect the rights of others-Application filed by the applicant was held to be not maintainable with the observations that as far as the applicant's apprehension that his complaint/grievance would not be entertained by the Ministry of Defence, because the respondents had held senior positions in the Armed Forces, the Additional Attorney General assured the Court that the complaint/grievance will be given due consideration; that there was no reason to doubt this statement made on behalf of the Government of Pakistan, therefore, the apprehension of the applicant is misplaced, and that, if the applicant submits a complaint/grievance to the Ministry of Defence of the Government of Pakistan, it shall be dealt with in accordance with law. In Attendance: Ch. Aamir Rehman, Additional Attorney-General for Pakistan on Court's call.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan- -Arts. 10-A & 184(3)-Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXV-Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act (XVII of 2023), S. 2(1)-Complaint filed in Human Rights Cell of the Supreme Court-Scope-Orders passed by the Chief Justice in his chambers on such complaint- -Legality-[Per Qazi Faez Isa, CJ.: Neither can the Chief Justice nor any Judge in Chamber alone can pass an order beyond what is provided for in the Supreme Court Rules, 1980-Therefore, the proceedings that the former Chief Justice undertook (in his chamber) with regard to the present matter, were not legal proceedings, and were of no legal effect-Human Rights Cell (of the Supreme Court) can only consider the complaints it receives, and if the same meet the test of Article 184(3) of the Constitution, that is, the matter is one of public importance with reference to enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights put it up for consideration of the Chief Justice, and the Chief Justice in Chamber could only direct that it be numbered and put up for consideration in Court-However, since the promulgation of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 (‘the Act’) the Chief Justice has lost even this power as now the Committee, under section 2(1) of the Act, comprising of the Chief Justice and the next two senior Judges, will determine whether the matter should be numbered and fixed in Court for hearing]-[Per Athar Minallah, J.: Human Rights Cell (‘Cell’) of the Supreme Court set up in the Supreme Court building in 2005 was not established under any law, nor did its proceedings, held by the Chief Justice in his Chambers, or orders/directions and letters issued to public bodies and organisations have any legal backing-Orders, directions and letters in the name of the Supreme Court create a wrongful impression of being judicial-Summons issued to parties and the proceedings held in the Chamber of the Chief Justice or a meeting room, rather than in open Court, are likely to infringe the right to a fair trial and due process-Human Rights Cell (‘Cell’) is bereft of jurisdiction or power to, directly or indirectly, perform any functions or exercise purported powers which are judicial in nature or may affect the rights of the parties in any manner-Only function that the Cell may perform is to receive representations, letters or correspondence from the general public and then place them before the Chief Justice to be dealt with under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980-Any proceedings undertaken or held by the Chief Justice or the Director General of the Cell and summons, orders, directions or letters issued pursuant thereto are declared as illegal and ultra vires the Constitution-Registrar of the Supreme Court may, therefore, restrain the Cell from undertaking any activity, proceedings or to issue summons, orders, directions and letters having no legal backing]. Azhar Iqbal v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2015 Isl. 140 ref.

Summary: Application for summoning the record/Rapt with Audio recording from the office of Rescue-15 filed by the accused before cross-examining the witnesses of the prosecution, was dismissed:- High Court rejected the criminal revision following the provisions of sub-section (7) to section 265-F Cr.P.C. declaring that though the accused has right to summon record/relevant witness regarding matter in issue but only on his turn i.e. entering on his defence and not before this stage. Criminal Revision petition being meritless is dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Appeal under Section 7(3)(d) of Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977?CSS Competitive Examination--- Question of the allocation of Women Quota and adjustment & appointment of Women on open merit---Upon qualifying the CSS-Competitive examination on open merit by the female candidates of women quota they should accordingly be adjusted firstly in open merit seats and thereafter the seats of Women Quota shall be filled up from the other women candidates according to the merit of 10% women quota. Appeal dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act (VI of 1997)--- ----Ss.13(2), 11B & 17(2)---Consumer---Filing of complaint regarding exaggerated amount in electricity bill---Limitation---Application for rejection of complaint being time barred filed by the respondent (Electricity Supply Company) was accepted by the Consumer Court---Validity---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997 (Act) was promulgated to provide for healthy growth of fair commercial practices, the promotion and protection of legitimate interest of consumers and speedy redressal of their complaints and matters arising out of or connected therewith, which purpose and object clearly envisages that the enactment is consumer beneficial and as such, it requires to be treated in the same manner in order to provide and extend the consumers a fair chance qua protection of their legitimate rights---Section 13(2) of the Act provides that a complaint shall be submitted before the Consumer Court within 10 days of the sale, delivery or rendering of the service---Appellant had filed the complaint against the respondent-PESCO before the Consumer Court on 03.08.2022, while the disputed electricity bill was payable till 05.08.2022, thus, in the attending circumstances of the case, the question of limitation would at best be seen at the time of final determination of the matter by the Consumer Court; particularly, in the circumstances, when the first proviso to S.13(2) has conferred discretion upon the court to entertain a complaint filed beyond ten days within such time as it may allow if it is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not filing the same within the specified time subject to the provision of second proviso---Consumer Court was held to have committed gross illegality and jurisdictional error in rejecting the complaint of the appellant---Appeal was accepted, in circumstances. Muhammad Umar Saeed for Appellant. Hamid Ali for Respondents.