Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 497(2)---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(1)(c)---Post-arrest bail---Further inquiry---Recovery of 2000 grams of charas from alleged physical possession---Timeline of habeas corpus and FIR---Petitioner, Mst. Robina Bibi alias Rubina Kausar, sought post-arrest bail in FIR No.2518/2025 registered on 19.12.2025 at 03:20 p.m. at Police Station Noshehra Virkan, District Gujranwala, for an alleged occurrence earlier the same day---Additional Sessions Judge, Nowshera Virkan, dismissed bail vide order dated 17.01.2026 and Lahore High Court declined bail vide order dated 25.03.2026 in Crl. Misc. No.10298-B/2026---Held, that comparison of dates and times in the documentation revealed an exceptional circumstance that could not be ignored at the bail stage---Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus (W.P. No.76179/2025) was moved before Lahore High Court before noon on 19.12.2025, alleging illegal detention since 17.12.2025, whereas the instant FIR was registered later that afternoon at 03:20 p.m.---Closely matching timeline between filing of the habeas corpus petition and registration of the recovery case created a noticeable dent in the prosecution story, compromised transparency of the alleged recovery and placed the prosecution case under a serious cloud of doubt, rendering it a fit case for further inquiry under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 497---Post-arrest bail---Mala fides---Prior murder case in which bail already granted---Defence plea that the subsequent narcotics case was orchestrated through connivance of police and rival complainant party could not be brushed aside at the tentative stage---Deep-seated friction between local police and petitioner's family, originating from prior murder case (FIR No.1881/2025) in which petitioner had already been granted post-arrest bail, and culminating in immediate filing of the habeas corpus petition, constituted convincing evidence of potential mala fides and ulterior motives---Present case was one of further enquiry, and concession of bail was to be extended as a rule as held in Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34)---Plea of false implication required appreciation of evidence which could only be undertaken after recording evidence before the Trial Court---Observations were tentative and would not influence the Trial Court during trial. Cited Cases: • Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 • Ehsan Ullah v. The State 2012 SCMR 1137 • Salman Mushtaq and others v. The State through P.G. Punjab and another 2024 SCMR 14 Disposition: Criminal petition converted into appeal and allowed; petitioner/appellant Mst. Robina Bibi alias Rubina Kausar allowed post-arrest bail in the instant FIR subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (Crl.P. No.731 of 2026, Supreme Court of Pakistan, reasons of short order dated 16.06.2026, by Irfan Saadat Khan, J.; Not Approved for Reporting)

Summary: (a) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----S. 109 read with Fourth Schedule, Rr. 5(b) & 6A---Tax avoidance scheme---Re-characterisation of share sale and re-purchase by insurance companies---"Main purpose" test---Respondents, being insurance companies, held shares classified as "available for sale" in associated listed companies---Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Insurance) Rules, 2002, R. 13(a), required such investments to be stated at the lower of cost or market value, so that increase in market value could not be recognised in the accounts---During the relevant tax year the companies sold and shortly thereafter re-purchased the shares, thereby capturing the prevailing market value in their books, and claimed exemption of the resulting capital gain under R. 6A of the Fourth Schedule (inserted by Finance Act, 2005 and omitted by Finance Act, 2017; relevant tax years falling within the period the Rule remained in force)---Taxation Officer invoked S. 109 to re-characterise the transactions as "appreciation of investment" under R. 5(b) and denied the exemption---Held, that a taxing statute was to be construed according to the language employed, and where two interpretations of a charging provision were reasonably possible, the interpretation favourable to the taxpayer was to be preferred---Transactions could be viewed as capturing suppressed market value in order to improve the balance sheet and liquidity, or as entered into solely to avoid tax; the factual finding of intent by the Appellate Tribunal, maintained by the High Court in reference jurisdiction, favoured the taxpayer---While the companies obtained a tax benefit, their main purpose was not tax avoidance but to record the increased value of the shares in their books of account---Subsection (2) of S. 109 required that "the main purpose of a person in entering into the transaction is the avoidance or reduction of ... liability to tax"; if tax avoidance was only incidental or consequential, it could not constitute the main purpose and tax avoidance under S. 109 was not established---Anti-tax avoidance regimes of other countries could not simply be imported; the scope of the Pakistani regime was determined by the language of S. 109---Companies had consistently shown the portfolio at acquisition cost and had not taken credit for any "appreciation of investment" in the accounts; R. 5(b) therefore had no application, particularly in the absence of any corresponding credit in the accounts---Exemption from capital gains under R. 6A was available for Tax Year 2007 and the transactions were covered by that Rule---Deemed assessments could be re-characterised under S. 109 only upon notice to the person who had entered into the transaction, and the Revenue was additionally required to establish that the main purpose was avoidance of tax, which it had failed to do---Revenue had acted illegally; Appellate Tribunal and High Court had rightly declined to interfere with the deemed assessments. (b) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----Ss. 67, 99 & 109 and Fourth Schedule---Insurance business---Whether Fourth Schedule, being a special provision, overrode S. 67---Judicial restraint---Second question, whether S. 67 was inapplicable to an insurance business, not determined---Applicability of S. 109 had not been challenged by the insurance companies, there being no cross-appeal, and the Court was not inclined to treat the High Court's reasoning on that provision as per incuriam merely because earlier precedents had not considered S. 109, which was a newly introduced tool---Law obliged the Court to refrain from deciding questions where the case could be decided on narrower grounds---Having concluded that the finding on the purpose of the transaction in favour of the taxpayer was clear and did not call for interference, the subsequent question was left unanswered. Cited Cases: • Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1921) 1 KB 64 • Government of Pakistan v. Hashwani Hotel Ltd PLD 1990 Supreme Court 68 • Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana 2015 SCMR 1739 Disposition: Civil Appeals Nos.854 to 862 of 2011, 1666 and 1667 of 2013, 48 to 50 of 2014, 788 and 789 of 2015, 938 to 940 of 2017 and 484 of 2018 dismissed by short orders dated 16.06.2026, reasons recorded thereafter; C.M.As. Nos.8167 and 8168 of 2016, seeking setting aside of ex-parte orders dated 14.10.2016 against Habib Insurance Company Limited, disposed of as having lost relevance upon dismissal of Civil Appeals Nos.788 and 789 of 2015 in favour of the applicant. (Supreme Court of Pakistan, reasons dated 16.09.2026, by Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, J.; Approved for Reporting)

Summary: (a) Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 2020----Ss. 73, 116 & 117 and Sindh Cooperative Societies Rules, 2020, R. 53---Cooperative society---Election dispute---Jurisdiction of Cooperative Court---Alternate statutory remedy---Elections of Sindh Secretariat Cooperative Housing Society Limited held on 14.12.2025 were set aside by High Court of Sindh in constitutional jurisdiction with directions for fresh elections---Held, Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 2020 is a special statute regulating registration, management, supervision, control and dispute resolution mechanism of cooperative societies and creates a special adjudicatory structure; where controversy falls within the field occupied by the Act and the Rules, the forum created by the statute has to be approached in the first instance---S. 73 is mandatory and the expression "shall be tried" indicates that disputes within the statutory field are to be tried by the Cooperative Court and not by any other forum as a matter of first instance, subject only to exclusions expressly mentioned therein---S. 73 identifies nature of disputes, S. 116 creates the forum and S. 117 vests jurisdiction in it; R. 53 defines the contours of "dispute touching the business of a society", an expression of wide import including disputes relating to membership rights, internal governance, functioning of the committee and affairs of the society---Act thus creates a complete jurisdictional route---Challenge to elections held on 14.12.2025 was in substance a dispute touching affairs, business and management of the society, not collateral or administrative in nature, and fell squarely within jurisdiction of Cooperative Court---Proper remedy lay before the statutory forum and constitution petition was not maintainable as a first remedy. Cited Cases: • Syed Muhammad Kazim and another v. Rub Razi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and another 2024 YLR 1668 (affirmed vide order dated 03.04.2024 in HCA No. 96 of 2024) • Muhammad Dawood v. Mst. Sakeena Farooque and others 2025 SCMR 1229 • Qureshi Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Province of Sindh (order dated 29.04.2026 in CP No.D-1618 of 2025, High Court of Sindh) (b) Constitution of Pakistan----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Disputed questions of fact---Election of cooperative society---Controversy before High Court involved factual disputes regarding preparation of voters' list, custody and availability of original record, transparency of election process and legality of conduct of elections---Held, such matters were disputed by both parties and could not be finally determined merely on basis of pleadings and affidavits---Disputed questions of fact are not ordinarily to be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction, and the principle applies with greater force to election disputes---Where a special election forum exists, High Court must first address question of jurisdiction and should not assume role of a fact-finding election forum---High Court set aside the election without the factual controversy being tried by the competent statutory forum---Disputed questions could not properly be decided in constitutional jurisdiction as a court of first instance. Cited Cases: • Special Secretary-II (Law & Order), Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Fayyaz Dawar 2023 SCMR 1442 • Jameel Qadir and others v. Government of Balochistan 2023 SCMR 1919 (c) Constitution of Pakistan----Art. 199---Exceptions to rule of alternate remedy---Jurisdictional error---Impugned judgment did not identify any admitted or patent violation of a mandatory statutory provision justifying bypass of statutory remedy---Held, constitutional jurisdiction may be exercised despite alternate remedy in exceptional cases such as where impugned action is coram non judice, without jurisdiction, mala fide or violative of natural justice on admitted facts, but the present case did not fall within such exceptional category as alleged defects were disputed and required factual determination---Allegations by respondents may or may not ultimately succeed but their determination required examination of record and evidence by the forum created under the Act---High Court set aside a concluded election despite availability of special statutory forum, despite disputed questions of fact and despite existence of substantially overlapping proceedings (Suit No. 123 of 2026) before the competent statutory forum---Impugned judgment suffered from jurisdictional error and legal infirmity; High Court ought to have declined to entertain the constitution petition and relegated parties to the Cooperative Court. Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed; impugned judgment dated 17.03.2026 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Constitution Petition No. D-6281 of 2025 set aside; Cooperative Court directed to decide the issue regarding legality and authenticity of the elections of the society expeditiously, preferably within thirty (30) working days; further exercise of conducting elections, if any, to be carried out in accordance with law; copy of order to be sent to the concerned District Judge for onward transmission to the relevant special judge for Cooperative Societies, Karachi. F.C.P.L.A. No.73-K of 2026, order dated 16.06.2026 (Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J.). Approved for Reporting.

Summary: (a) Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 2020----Ss. 73, 116 & 117 and Sindh Cooperative Societies Rules, 2020, R. 53---Cooperative society---Election dispute---Jurisdiction of Cooperative Court---Alternate statutory remedy---Elections of Sindh Secretariat Cooperative Housing Society Limited held on 14.12.2025 were set aside by High Court of Sindh in constitutional jurisdiction with directions for fresh elections---Held, Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 2020 is a special statute regulating registration, management, supervision, control and dispute resolution mechanism of cooperative societies and creates a special adjudicatory structure; where controversy falls within the field occupied by the Act and the Rules, the forum created by the statute has to be approached in the first instance---S. 73 is mandatory and the expression "shall be tried" indicates that disputes within the statutory field are to be tried by the Cooperative Court and not by any other forum as a matter of first instance, subject only to exclusions expressly mentioned therein---S. 73 identifies nature of disputes, S. 116 creates the forum and S. 117 vests jurisdiction in it; R. 53 defines the contours of "dispute touching the business of a society", an expression of wide import including disputes relating to membership rights, internal governance, functioning of the committee and affairs of the society---Act thus creates a complete jurisdictional route---Challenge to elections held on 14.12.2025 was in substance a dispute touching affairs, business and management of the society, not collateral or administrative in nature, and fell squarely within jurisdiction of Cooperative Court---Proper remedy lay before the statutory forum and constitution petition was not maintainable as a first remedy. Cited Cases: • Syed Muhammad Kazim and another v. Rub Razi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and another 2024 YLR 1668 (affirmed vide order dated 03.04.2024 in HCA No. 96 of 2024) • Muhammad Dawood v. Mst. Sakeena Farooque and others 2025 SCMR 1229 • Qureshi Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Province of Sindh (order dated 29.04.2026 in CP No.D-1618 of 2025, High Court of Sindh) (b) Constitution of Pakistan----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Disputed questions of fact---Election of cooperative society---Controversy before High Court involved factual disputes regarding preparation of voters' list, custody and availability of original record, transparency of election process and legality of conduct of elections---Held, such matters were disputed by both parties and could not be finally determined merely on basis of pleadings and affidavits---Disputed questions of fact are not ordinarily to be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction, and the principle applies with greater force to election disputes---Where a special election forum exists, High Court must first address question of jurisdiction and should not assume role of a fact-finding election forum---High Court set aside the election without the factual controversy being tried by the competent statutory forum---Disputed questions could not properly be decided in constitutional jurisdiction as a court of first instance. Cited Cases: • Special Secretary-II (Law & Order), Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Fayyaz Dawar 2023 SCMR 1442 • Jameel Qadir and others v. Government of Balochistan 2023 SCMR 1919 (c) Constitution of Pakistan----Art. 199---Exceptions to rule of alternate remedy---Jurisdictional error---Impugned judgment did not identify any admitted or patent violation of a mandatory statutory provision justifying bypass of statutory remedy---Held, constitutional jurisdiction may be exercised despite alternate remedy in exceptional cases such as where impugned action is coram non judice, without jurisdiction, mala fide or violative of natural justice on admitted facts, but the present case did not fall within such exceptional category as alleged defects were disputed and required factual determination---Allegations by respondents may or may not ultimately succeed but their determination required examination of record and evidence by the forum created under the Act---High Court set aside a concluded election despite availability of special statutory forum, despite disputed questions of fact and despite existence of substantially overlapping proceedings (Suit No. 123 of 2026) before the competent statutory forum---Impugned judgment suffered from jurisdictional error and legal infirmity; High Court ought to have declined to entertain the constitution petition and relegated parties to the Cooperative Court. Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed; impugned judgment dated 17.03.2026 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Constitution Petition No. D-6281 of 2025 set aside; Cooperative Court directed to decide the issue regarding legality and authenticity of the elections of the society expeditiously, preferably within thirty (30) working days; further exercise of conducting elections, if any, to be carried out in accordance with law; copy of order to be sent to the concerned District Judge for onward transmission to the relevant special judge for Cooperative Societies, Karachi. F.C.P.L.A. No.73-K of 2026, order dated 16.06.2026 (Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J.). Approved for Reporting.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997----S.9(1), category 3(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.497(2)---Post-arrest bail---Further inquiry---Alleged recovery of 2,000 grams charas from personal possession of accused---Record showed that habeas corpus petition alleging accused’s illegal detention since 17.12.2025 had been filed before High Court before noon on 19.12.2025, whereas narcotics FIR was subsequently registered at 3:20 p.m. on same date---Close chronology between institution of habeas corpus proceedings and registration of recovery case constituted exceptional factual anomaly, created noticeable dent in prosecution story, compromised transparency of alleged recovery and placed case under serious doubt---Matter consequently called for further inquiry. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S.497(2)---Bail---Mala fides and ulterior motive---Accused had already been granted post-arrest bail in an earlier murder case---Plea that subsequent narcotics case had been engineered through connivance of police and rival complainant party could not be brushed aside at bail stage---Friction between local police and accused’s family, prior criminal litigation and immediate filing of habeas corpus petition constituted material indicating possible mala fides and ulterior motive---Question of false implication required appraisal of evidence at trial and rendered case one of further inquiry. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S.497(2)---Further inquiry---Rule of bail---Where material available at tentative stage created reasonable doubt regarding genuineness of recovery and suggested possible mala fide implication, concession of bail was to be extended as a rule---Detailed examination of defence plea or final determination of credibility of prosecution evidence was not permissible at bail stage. Cited Cases: • Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 • Ehsan Ullah v. The State 2012 SCMR 1137 • Salman Mushtaq and others v. The State through P.G. Punjab and another 2024 SCMR 14 (d) Bail---Tentative assessment---Observations not to prejudice trial---Findings recorded while granting bail were provisional and confined to determining whether case required further inquiry---Trial Court was to decide prosecution case independently on evidence without being influenced by observations made in bail order. Disposition---Petition converted into appeal and allowed---Petitioner granted post-arrest bail in FIR No.2518 of 2025, Police Station Noshehra Virkan, District Gujranwala, subject to furnishing bail bond of Rs.100,000 with one surety in like amount to satisfaction of Trial Court. Mst. Robina Bibi alias Rubina Kausar v. The State and another, Criminal Petition No.731 of 2026, Supreme Court of Pakistan, decided on 16.06.2026, not approved for reporting.

Summary: Leave to contest was granted to the tenant by holding that the Ejectment Petition of the landlord was not maintainable in the absence of particulars of oral tenancy which established that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between them which is pre-requisite for the Rent Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. Further, the Ejectment Petition was dismissed, accordingly without providing an opportunity to record evidence as the Rent Tribunal is divested of jurisdiction upon such determination.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Customs Act, 1969----S.13---Private bonded warehouse---Diplomatic bonded warehouse---Nature and effect of licence---Section 13 expressly authorized licensing of private warehouses for deposit of dutiable goods without immediate payment of customs duty and prescribed complete procedure for suspension or cancellation upon breach of licence conditions or violation of law---Petitioner held valid diplomatic bonded warehouse licence subsisting until 31.07.2027 and no proceedings for its suspension or cancellation had been initiated---So long as licence remained valid, legal existence of warehouse and entitlement to operate under special statutory framework could not be neutralized indirectly through refusal of import authorization. (b) Customs Rules, 2001----R.333(a)---Import and transshipment of spirits---Diplomatic bonded warehouses and diplomatic missions---Rule generally prohibited transshipment of spirits but expressly created exception for spirits imported by diplomatic bonded warehouses and diplomatic missions after obtaining authorization from Ministry of Commerce---Specific exception constituted statutory acknowledgment that import of spirits by such entities was legally permissible subject to authorization---Had law intended absolute prohibition, no express exception would have been created. (c) Customs Act, 1969----S.13---Customs Rules, 2001, R.333(a)---Customs General Order No.12 of 2002---Ministry of Commerce Office Memorandum dated 23.09.1992---Diplomatic bonded warehouses---Special statutory regime---Combined framework regulated licensing, importation, warehousing, supervision, documentation, payments and restricted sales to diplomatic missions, diplomats and other privileged persons---Diplomatic bonded warehouses constituted a distinct class recognized by law and could not be equated with ordinary commercial importers. (d) Ministry of Commerce Office Memorandum dated 23.09.1992---Import of liquor by diplomatic bonded warehouses---Continued operation---Memorandum authorized bonded warehouses to import liquor on behalf of foreign diplomatic missions, diplomats and privileged foreign persons subject to prescribed safeguards---No notification, statutory instrument or executive order expressly withdrawing, rescinding or superseding said memorandum was produced---Mere promulgation of later Import Policy Order did not establish implied repeal of special administrative framework. (e) Customs General Order No.12 of 2002----Cls.21 & 22(b)---Diplomatic bonded warehouses---Sales to entitled persons---General Order recognized diplomatic bonded warehouses established under S.13 of Customs Act, prescribed foreign-currency payment arrangements and permitted entitled expatriates and foreign nationals to purchase alcohol and specified goods from such warehouses---Condition that import remained subject to Import Policy Order regulated process but did not abolish warehouse regime, invalidate licences or repeal special exception under R.333(a). (f) Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act, 1972---Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961---Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963---Diplomatic bonded warehouses---International obligations---Ministry of Foreign Affairs had acknowledged bonded warehouses as recognized mechanism through which foreign missions and their members obtained relief from duties and taxes on hard drinks, tobacco, fragrances and other commodities through exemption certificates---Warehouse regime implemented Pakistan’s diplomatic obligations and was not an ordinary commercial trade arrangement. (g) Customs Act, 1969----Ss.83, 84 & 104---Bonded goods---In-bonding and ex-bonding---Distinction---Goods deposited in bonded warehouse remained under customs custody, supervision and control and were not integrated into domestic commerce merely upon physical arrival or in-bonding---Importation for home consumption and application of commercial trade restrictions attained legal significance at stage of ex-bonding under S.104---Warehousing under customs control was a deferred-duty storage mechanism distinct from clearance for home consumption. Cited Case: • Collector of Customs v. M/s A.R. and Company 2022 PTD 1408 (h) Import Policy Order, 2022----Appendix-A, Serial No.14---Alcoholic beverages and spirits---Diplomatic bonded warehouse---Goods stored under customs custody and cleared only against diplomatic exemption certificates did not enter unrestricted local market---Where supply remained confined to foreign missions, diplomats and privileged persons under comprehensive customs supervision, physical entry into bonded warehouse did not amount to prohibited commercial import for home consumption---No material showed diversion, misuse, breach of licence or circulation in local market. (i) Statutory interpretation---Generalia specialibus non derogant---General law and special law---Import Policy Order, 2022 constituted general framework governing ordinary commercial imports, whereas S.13 of Customs Act, R.333(a) of Customs Rules and Customs General Order No.12 of 2002 formed specialized regime for diplomatic bonded warehouses---General prohibition on alcoholic beverages could not override or defeat specific statutory pathway created for licensed diplomatic bonded warehouses. Cited Cases: • Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd. v. Soneri Bank Limited PLD 2018 SC 322 • Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd., Islamabad v. S.K. (Pvt.) Limited 2025 SCMR 570 (j) Statutory interpretation---Expressio unius est exclusio alterius---Rule 333(a) expressly mentioned diplomatic bonded warehouses and diplomatic missions as exceptions to general prohibition on transshipment of spirits---Deliberate inclusion demonstrated legislative intent to treat them as separate and permissible category and exclude them from restrictions applicable to ordinary importers. (k) Statutory interpretation---Ut res magis valeat quam pereat---Harmonious construction---Interpretation rendering R.333(a), Office Memorandum dated 23.09.1992 and Customs General Order No.12 of 2002 redundant or meaningless was impermissible---Import Policy Order and customs framework were to be read harmoniously so that general ban remained applicable to ordinary commercial imports while special diplomatic bonded warehouse regime continued to operate. Cited Case: • Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Large Taxpayers Unit, Lahore v. Coca Cola Export Corporation 2026 PTD 318 (l) Import Policy Order, 2022----Para.5(1)(b) read with Appendix-A, Serial No.14---Diplomatic exception---Although alcoholic beverages were ordinarily banned, para.5(1)(b) expressly exempted goods imported by foreign diplomatic missions enjoying customs-duty exemption under Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act, 1972---Said exception, read with R.333(a), Office Memorandum of 1992, Customs General Order No.12 of 2002 and Ministry of Foreign Affairs communication dated 20.09.2022, preserved lawful import mechanism through diplomatic bonded warehouses---Minister erred by reading prohibition in isolation and ignoring express exception. (m) Administrative law---Locus poenitentiae---Accrued and vested rights---Petitioner had operated for years under valid licence, invested capital, maintained staff, entered international supply arrangements and imported consignment in reliance upon subsisting statutory and regulatory framework---Administrative authority could reconsider its decision before rights crystallized, but once lawful order or representation had been acted upon and valuable rights created, it could not be withdrawn to detriment of beneficiary without lawful basis---Sudden refusal of authorization, absent change in primary legislation or statutory rules, unlawfully impaired accrued rights. Cited Case: • Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi PLD 1969 SC 407 (n) Rules of Business, 1973----Rr.8 & 13---Inter-divisional consultation---Diplomatic bonded warehouse regime concerned Commerce Division, Federal Board of Revenue and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and affected implementation of international diplomatic privileges---Prior meaningful consultation with Ministry of Foreign Affairs was mandatory before Commerce Division could declare 1992 framework repealed or dismantle diplomatic supply mechanism---Unilateral decision taken without such consultation suffered from procedural illegality. Cited Case: • Mustafa Impex, Karachi v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2016 SC 808 (o) Administrative law---Speaking order---Requirement of reasons---A valid speaking order was required to demonstrate application of mind, consideration of relevant statutory provisions and rational nexus between facts and conclusion---Impugned order merely assumed implied repeal of 1992 Memorandum and applied general prohibition without addressing S.13 of Customs Act, R.333(a), diplomatic exception in para.5(1)(b), Customs General Order No.12 of 2002, Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ position or distinction between in-bonding and home consumption---Order therefore lacked essential ingredients of lawful reasoned decision. Cited Cases: • Secretary, Ministry of Health, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others v. Dr. Rehana Hameed and others 2010 SCMR 511 • Fasih-ud-Din Khan and others v. Government of Punjab and others 2010 SCMR 1778 • Messrs United Woolen Mills Ltd. Workers’ Union v. Messrs United Woolen Mills Ltd. 2010 SCMR 1475 • Government of Sindh through Land Acquisition Officer and others v. Muhammad Juman and another 2009 SCMR 1407 (p) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.199---Judicial review of import policy decision---Policy discretion---Although trade and import policy ordinarily fell within executive domain, constitutional interference was warranted where decision misconstrued governing law, ignored special statutory regime, disregarded relevant material, violated Rules of Business and deprived valid licence of practical effect without lawful suspension or cancellation---Impugned speaking order was arbitrary, based upon misdirection in law and issued without lawful authority. Disposition---Writ petition allowed---Speaking Order dated 30.10.2025 passed by Minister-in-Charge, Commerce Division, set aside and declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect---Ministry of Commerce directed to issue forthwith requisite import authorization for petitioner’s consignment of 812 cases of alcoholic beverages imported under Invoice No.DIPL-010 and Bill of Lading No.SOCJEAKHI2400323 and intimate Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of High Court. M/s Diplomats Duty Free (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others, Writ Petition No.525 of 2026, Islamabad High Court, heard on 16.06.2026.