Summary: PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 114 [Multan Bench Multan] Present Ahmad Nadeem Arshad J SADIQ RASHEED and another - - Petitioners versus Mst UZMA RIZWAN and 10 others - - Respondents CR No 1242 of 2019 decided on 2792021 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - OVII R11 - - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act (V of 2017) S 43 - - Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) S 42 - - Suits for declaration - - Rejection of plaints - - Barred by law - - Appeal - - Allowed - - Benami owners - - Actual owner - - Entitlement for inheritance - - Suit property was not fall within ambit of benami property - - One party claims ownership of house in dispute whereas opposite party denies said claim based on registered documents which means property in dispute is not an un - attended and title - less property - - When such controversy arises between parties regarding ownership of house exclusive jurisdiction vests in Civil Courts to decide title and ownership of such property after recording of evidence of parties - - Respondent No 1 rightly instituted a suit for declaration in order to get declare her rights with regard to suit property before Civil Court - - The appellate Court has rightly observed that property in dispute does not fall within ambit of Benami property as defined in Act and Civil Court has jurisdiction to conduct trial and decide lis regarding title and ownership in accordance with law and Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 2017 is not applicable upon instant case - - Counsel for petitioners has failed to point out any error in impugned judgment and decree which is based upon p correct appraisal of law - - Civil revision dismissed [Para 8 9] C D E F Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 2017 (V of 2017) - - - - - - S 43 - - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - - Civil Courts shall have no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter to which any of authorities or tribunal is empowered by or under Act to determine [P 4] A Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 2017 (V of 2017) - - - - - - S 22 - - Benami property - - Intent object of benami - - Intent and object of Act 2017 is very much clear - - According to which if a property was purchased in name of a person who according to his social status unable to have purchased any property by his own means if found such property in his name then Act will come into play and will act upon procedure as laid down in Section 22 of Act and such property shall be considered as Benami property and would be subject to confiscation in favour of State [Para 5] B Mr Imran Shahzad Bhatti Advocate for Petitioners Ms Muhammad Suleman Bhatti Syed Tajamal Hussain Bukhari Mr Bilal Amin and Malik Nazir Hussain Advocates for RespondentsJudgement Result:Civil Revision dismissed

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan-Mansoor Usman Awan, A.G.P. and Ch. Aamir Rehman, Additional A.G.P. (in C.M.A. No. 8836 of 2023). For FESCO: Abdul Razzaq, Legal Consultant. Abdul Hafiz, DD Commercial. For LESCO: For MEPCO: For GEPCO: Ansar Mehmood, Chief Law Officer. For IESCO: For NEPRA: For NTDC: Mubeen A. Siddiqui and Muhammad Uzair Chughtai, Advocates-on-Record. Dr. Adnan Tariq, Advocate High Court (with permission of court). Muhammad Tufail, Maqsood Ahmad and Muhammad Ali in person. For Federation: Mansoor Usman Awan, A.G.P. and Ch. Aamir Rehman, Additional A.G.P.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.185(3)---Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act (XL of 1997), Ss.7(2)(g), 12G & 12G(6)---Electricity tariff adjustment---Constitutional petitions filed by consumers before the High Court, maintainability of---Alternate statutory remedy, non-availing of---Present petitions for leave to appeal were filed against the High Court's consolidated judgment whereby a large number of consumers' writ petitions were decided in matters arising from NEPRA-related electricity tariff decisions/adjustments, including disputes concerning Fuel Price Adjustment and Quarterly Tariff Adjustment; the petitioners before the Supreme Court included various DISCOs (e.g., FESCO, LESCO, MEPCO, GEPCO, IESCO), NEPRA and the Federation, while the private respondents were electricity consumers; the record also reflected related tariff-category disputes such as zero-rate tariff issues for exporters and changes affecting cold storages (industrial to commercial), alongside references to the statutory framework under the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 providing for review before NEPRA and appeals to the Appellate Tribunal (and further appeal thereafter)---Held: After concluding that the respondent consumers' writ petitions before the High Court were not maintainable, the Supreme Court gave the parties a chance to propose a workable solution, and they agreed to dispose of the present petitions on settled terms---A separate petition for leave to appeal arising from another constitutional petition involved zero-rated tariff for exporters and was treated as distinct and was to be heard with similar pending writs---Other constitutional petitions decided by relying on the same impugned judgment, though not yet challenged, were directed to be dealt with on the same footing since all parties were before the Supreme Court---In cold-storage matters (tariff shifted industrial to commercial), where NEPRA had heard and reserved decision, it was noted that NEPRA should decide independently under the law, uninfluenced by the impugned judgment---All present petitions were converted into appeal and allowed, in circumstances. For the Applicant: Mansoor Usman Awan, A.G.P. and Ch. Aamir Rehman, Additional A.G.P. (in C.M.A. No. 8836 of 2023). For the Petitioners: For FESCO: Waqar Amin Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court. Abdul Razzaq, Legal Consultant. Abdul Hafiz, DD Commercial. For LESCO: Munawar-us-Salam, Advocate Supreme Court. For MEPCO: Malik Rafique Rajwana, Advocate Supreme Court. For GEPCO: Salman Mansoor, Advocate Supreme Court. Aurangzeb Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court. Ansar Mehmood, Chief Law Officer. For IESCO: Faisal Bin Khurshid, Advocate Supreme Court. For NEPRA: Umer Aslam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court. For NTDC: Syed Hasnain Ibrahim Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court along with Dr. Yasir Awan and M. Shoaib. Mubeen A. Siddiqui and Muhammad Uzair Chughtai, Advocates-on-Record. For Respondents: Khawaja Tariq A. Raheem, Senior Advocate Supreme Court. Salman Akram Raja, Advocate Supreme Court. Umer Aslam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court along with Irfan-ul-Haq, Legal Advisor, Sajid Akram, DG and Mubashar Iqbal, Director (for NEPRA). Sheikh Muhammad Ali, Advocate Supreme Court. Shumail Butt, Advocate Supreme Court. Faisal Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court. Rashid Hafeez, Advocate Supreme Court. Muhammad Amir Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court. Ihsan Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court. Naeem Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court. Ch. Mumtaz-ul-Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court. Syed Ali Imran, Advocate Supreme Court. M. Ijaz Jamal, Advocate Supreme Court. Haq Nawaz Chattha, Advocate Supreme Court. Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court. Mian Mehmood Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court. A.G. Tariq Chaudhary, Advocate Supreme Court. Khurram Shahzad Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court. Nadeem Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court. M. Yaseen Farrukh, Advocate-on-Record. Mian Ghulam Hussain, Advocate-on-Record. Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record. Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record. Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record. Tariq Aziz, Advocate-on-Record. Mian Liaquat Ali, Advocate-on-Record. Dr. Adnan Tariq, Advocate High Court (with permission of court). Muhammad Tufail, Maqsood Ahmad and Muhammad Ali in person. For Federation: Mansoor Usman Awan, A.G.P. and Ch. Aamir Rehman, Additional A.G.P. Date of hearing: 16th October, 2023.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Detailed judgement in Urdu

Summary: (a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 (Amended 2022) ----Ss. 2(h)(ii), 3 & 8---Workplace harassment---Scope and evidentiary standard---Mere administrative confrontation or reprimand, absent sexual or gender-based hostility, does not constitute “harassment” within the meaning of the Act—Meeting of Appellant with Respondent No. 1 was found to be a routine administrative interaction; no loud or hostile exchange discernible from CCTV footage—Complaint found to lack evidence of sexually demeaning conduct or gender-based prejudice. (b) Inquiry Committee—Composition and impartiality ----Challenge to constitution of committee---Effect---Where initial Inquiry Committee was replaced upon employee’s request and the complainant expressed satisfaction with its reconstitution, subsequent allegation of bias without substantiating evidence cannot invalidate inquiry proceedings—Committee held properly constituted and impartial. (c) Evidence—Witness testimony and CCTV footage ----Evaluation of material evidence---Three witnesses produced by the Appellant deposed contrary to her stance; CCTV footage revealed no altercation or abusive conduct—Findings of Inquiry Committee supported by record and upheld. (d) Gender Discrimination ----S. 2(h)(ii)---Requirement of discriminatory mindset or prejudicial notion---Meaning of “gender stereotyping” discussed with reference to UN OHCHR report (2014) and international jurisprudence including *Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins* (490 U.S. 228, 1989) and *Konstantin Markin v. Russia* (ECtHR, Application No. 30078/06)---Complainant failed to establish any discriminatory mindset or gender stereotyping by Respondent No. 1—Absence of pattern or prejudice defeats claim of gender discrimination. (e) Res judicata / prior dismissal ----Effect of previous complaint on same facts---Earlier complaint (FOH-HQR/0000042/2023) had been dismissed as administrative in nature and outside the scope of harassment under S.2(h); order attained finality—Re-litigation on same facts not permissible. (f) Disposition— Appeal dismissed—Findings of Inquiry Committee affirmed as well-reasoned, impartial, and supported by compelling evidence—No interference warranted.

Summary: (a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 (Amended 2022) ----S. 2(h)(i) & (ii)---Scope of “harassment”---Sexual harassment or gender-based discrimination required---Transfer/disciplinary grievances, even if styled as “psychological harassment”, do not fall within S.2(h) absent pleading or proof of sexual conduct or discriminatory treatment because of sex—Held, complaint alleging hardship from transfer and ensuing disciplinary action does not satisfy either limb of S.2(h). (b) Jurisdiction—Maintainability ----Ombudsperson’s remit vis-à-vis service matters---Where the gravamen concerns terms and conditions of service (posting/transfer, compulsory retirement), the forum under the 2010 Act lacks jurisdiction—Reliance placed on *Nadia Naz v. President of Pakistan* PLD 2021 SC 784 (as to service/discipline being outside Ombudsperson’s domain, aspect not disturbed in PLD 2023 SC 588) and *Muhammad Rizwan Dalia v. Ombudsman* PLD 2022 Sindh 213—Complaint held not maintainable. (c) Gender Discrimination—Burden and proof ----Comparator and pattern evidence---Complainant neither pleaded nor proved that women were treated less favourably than men—Record showed multiple female employees routinely transferred inter-city; impugned transfer and disciplinary orders were issued primarily by female officers—Held, absence of facts showing discriminatory mindset or prejudicial notion against women defeats S.2(h)(ii) claim. (d) Same-sex harassment—Evidentiary routes (persuasive authorities) ----Tests and application---Court referred to *Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.*, 523 U.S. 75 (1998) and *Roberts v. Glenn Industrial Group, Inc.* (4th Cir. 2021) as persuasive on proving same-sex harassment (sexual desire; sex-specific hostility; differ

Summary: Background:The petitioner, Mukhtar Ahmad Ali, sought information from the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding various aspects of the Court's staffing and service rules.The petitioner argued that he had the fundamental right to access this information under Article 19A of the Constitution and the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017.After initially being denied the requested information, the petitioner appealed to the Pakistan Information Commission, which ruled in his favor. However, the Registrar challenged this ruling through a writ petition before the Islamabad High Court.---Issues:Whether the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017 applies to the Supreme Court of Pakistan.Whether the petitioner has the right to access the requested information under Article 19A of the Constitution.Whether the Registrar's refusal to provide the requested information was justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that while the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017 does not apply to the Supreme Court, Article 19A of the Constitution does. Access to information is deemed a fundamental right essential for democratic governance and accountability.The Court emphasized historical precedents and principles, including those from early Islam, to underscore the importance of transparency and accountability in governance.It ruled that the information sought by the petitioner was not sensitive and did not contravene public interest. Therefore, the Registrar should have provided the requested information to the petitioner.The Court directed the Registrar of the Supreme Court to provide the requested information to the petitioner within seven days and ordered a refund of the court fees paid by the petitioner.Given the public importance of the case, the judgment was ordered to be translated into Urdu, with the English version considered the official decision.---Citations/Precedents:Manzoor Elahi v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1975 Supreme Court 66Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1988 Supreme Court 416Principles of Policy set out in the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 38(a)---Quote:The Right of Information Act (2017) is applicable to courts set up under Federal Law. The Supreme Court is not established under a law but under the Constitution, therefore, the Act is not applicable to it. However, Article 19A of the Constitution is applicable, whereunder the Supreme Court should have provided the information which was sought. Registrar directed to provide the requested information to the petitioner within 7 days and refund the court fee paid by the petitioner.