Summary: Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.Maxim. Actus curiae Neminem Gravabit ( Act of court shall prejudice no man) Principle of Locus penitentiae.

Summary: Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973... Principle of Locus poentintiae--- Section 4(1) of West Pakistan National Calamity (Prevention and Relief) 1958. Once the petitioner has been given the relief under the law, then the same could not be withdrawn by the authorities, especially when there were no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of petitioner.

Summary: Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.Admission in University--- Principle of locus poenitentiae---- in absence of any fraud admission once granted cannot be cancelled at belated stage.

Summary: The principle of locus poenitentia.

Summary: ''No limitation is prescribed to competently and successfully challenge a void order/notification. The principle of locus poenitentiae is meant to condone a bona fide mistake and not to be pressed into service for reaping the benefit of any fraud or to camouflage the same.'' --- Issue:Whether the notification dated 20.10.2004, granting Shahiq Ahmed Khan pensionary benefits and counting his service in NCL towards seniority in the Senate, was issued lawfully and valid for granting pensionary benefits.Rule:The Supreme Court analyzed the validity of the notification dated 20.10.2004, whether Shahiq Ahmed Khan was entitled to be absorbed in the Senate Secretariat, and if his previous service in NCL could be counted towards pension and seniority in the Senate.Analysis:The Supreme Court found that the notification dated 20.10.2004 was void ab initio as it was issued without approval from the competent authority, which was the Chairman of the Senate. The court noted that Shahiq Ahmed Khan, who was the Acting Secretary of the Senate at the time, could not have his previous service in NCL counted for seniority or pension benefits as NCL was not a pensionable organization and its employees were not civil servants. The court also criticized the Federal Service Tribunal for not properly examining the legal status of the notification and for making a decision based on a misreading of the record.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 11.06.2015, remanded the case for a fresh decision in accordance with the law and the observations made by the Supreme Court, and directed the observations regarding the conduct of the members of the Federal Service Tribunal to be transmitted to the concerned quarters for necessary action.

Summary: The petitioner challenged an order which had withdrawn the No Objection Certificate (NOC) previously issued to the petitioner for operating a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) station. The petitioner had been engaged in both petrol and CNG businesses since 2007 and had obtained the necessary approvals and licenses for their operations. However, a fire incident occurred on the petitioner's premises in October 2014, leading to the sealing of the station and the formation of an Enquiry Committee. The committee found that the NOC had been obtained with forged documents, and the station was constructed illegally in a residential area. The committee recommended the cancellation of the NOC and the initiation of criminal proceedings. The judgment cites relevant legal provisions, including Rule 115 of The Petroleum Rules, 1937 and Rule 6 of The Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) (Production and Marketing) Rules, 1992, to support the petitioner's claim. The judgment concluded that the role of the respondent No. 3 was limited to issuing the NOC, and after the issuance, they had no authority to withdraw it. Additionally, it references the principle of "locus poenitentiae" and past legal precedents to emphasize that once a lawful license is granted, it cannot be revoked without valid cause. As a result, the judgment sets aside the order issued by the District Co-ordination Officer, which had withdrawn the petitioner's NOC, and it allows the petitioner's writ petition.

Summary: Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.Challenge made to a policy in Writ-- Rights, vested Rights and Fundamental Rights under a policy... Principle of Locus Poenitentiae.

Summary: Locus poenitentiae is the power of receding till a decisive stepis taken but it is not a principle of law that order once passed becomesirrevocable and past and closed transaction. If the order is illegal thenperpetual rights cannot be gained on the basis of an illegal order. In thepresent case, the benefits extended to different employees or civil servantsthrough the impugned legislations are not only violative of law but are alsoultra vires of the Constitution referred hereinabove. In such like situation theprinciple of locus poenitentiae does not attract and in this regard this Courtin the cases of Muhammad Nadeem Arif and others vs. Inspector General ofPolice, Punjab, Lahore and others (2010 PLC (C.S) 924) and The Engineerin-Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another vs.Jalaluddin (PLD 1992 S.C 207) has held that principle of locus poenitentiaewould not be attracted in a case under which the benefit has been extendedby a law, which is violative of the provisions of the Constitution.

Summary: [(1) Against stoppage of passage facility to retired employee, (2) discussion on master and servant relationship] The petitioner, a retired employee of PIA, had been allowed the post-retirement benefit of Air Passage Facility, but it was discontinued later. The petitioner challenged the discontinuation of this facility in the writ petition. The court referred to previous judgments and principles of law. It noted that the relationship between PIA and its employees could be considered that of master and servant, but violations of statutory provisions or other laws could be enforced through writ jurisdiction. The court also observed that the expression "violation of law" should be considered in its generic sense, including judicial principles laid down by superior courts. Considering the arguments and facts presented, the court found that the petitioner had been allowed the benefit of Air Passage Facility by the respondents for a significant period, and they relaxed the rules to grant this benefit. The court emphasized that once a right is created, it cannot be retracted without valid reasons. The principle of locus poenitentiae, allowing retracing of a right, did not apply in this case. Based on these findings, the court held that the writ petition was maintainable, and the respondents were not justified in discontinuing the Air Passage Facility.

Summary: (a) Locus poenitentiae, principle of-------Illegal order---Validity---Perpetual rights could not be claimed on basis of an illegal order---Principle of locus poenitentiae could be invoked in respect of an order being illegal orcontrary to or in contravention of any provision of law.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199--General Clauses Act (X of 1897), Ss. 24 & 24-A---Constitutional petition---CivilService---Appointment of Educator in Education Department---Withdrawal of appointmentorder without issuing show-cause, notice or providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner afterhaving served for about eleven (11) months efficiently and diligently---Validity---Appointmentorder of petitioner was neither illegal nor contrary to any provision of law nor issued by anincompetent authority---Competent authority had passed appointment order after scrutiny ofdocuments---Respondent had no authority to withdraw such appointment order without anyjustification---Respondent did not allege that petitioner had obtained appointment order bycommitting fraud or misrepresentation---Respondent had no locus poenitentiae to recall suchorder after same having been implemented---Petitioner had secured a vested right, which couldnot be taken away or withdrawn by authority without providing her an opportunity of hearing---High Court declared impugned order to be illegal and without lawful authority.Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. PIAC and others 1994 SCMR 2232 rel.(c) Public functionaries-------Duty of public functionaries to perform their duties within parameters prescribed by law.(d) Administration of justice-------When law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, then same should be done insuch manner or the same should not be done at all---Principles. PLD 2005 Kar. 128 and 2007 PSC 281 rel.