Summary: Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenging therein the amendment in Rule 66 of the Punjab Mining Concessions Rules, 2002 and fixation of enhanced rate of Royalty--- Section 2 of the Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act of 1948 empowers the Government to make Rules--- Rule 66(1)(2) of Punjab Mining Concessions Rules, 2002 fixation of Rate of Royalty--- The Government has jurisdiction under Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948 to amend the Punjab Mining Concessions Rules, 2002 and to fix or enhance the amount of royalty on Limestone & Argillaceous Clay. The Provincial Government is also empowered to frame Rules, describing the conditions for Mining Lease and royalties as well as to fix or enhance rate of royalty which (royalty) is not legally considered as a ?tax'. Further as a policy matter the fixing, modifying or enhancing the rate of royalty there is no need to hear the petitioners-companies and the same does not offend the principle of audi alteram partem. --- Writ Petitions dismissed.

Summary: Intra Court Appeal --- Appointment on the recommendation of PPSC---Proven use of Malpractice, unfair means in the test, interview in inquiry conducted by Anti Corruption Establishment. --- PPSC withdrew its recommendation for appointment of alleged successful candidate on the said post--- On said recommendations concerned Department terminated their newly appointed employee during probation without any stigma--- As per the Regulation 26 and 63 of Regulations-2016, the Commission is competent to withdraw its earlier recommendations sent to the concerned department if a person has been found deficient in any conditionality regarding his / her eligibility as a candidate and if any error or omission in result or merit is found, even after dispatch of recommendation to the concerned department.--- The appointing authority has jurisdiction to terminate its newly appointed employee without assigning any reason or serving any show cause notice during the period of probation. --- Public Service Commission and Government were obliged to ensure complete transparency in the process of selection / appointment of civil servants and if an incompetent or the corrupt persons enter into the civil service at the unwarranted ouster of the eligible and competent candidate from public post / job opportunities such appointments which disregard the merit, undoubtedly perpetuate bad governance and would drained the public exchequer and such appointments also thwart the credibility of the Commission. High Court has no suo moto jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter---- Intra Court Appeals allowed. Writ petition of the respondent stood dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) —S. 34—Compensation—Interest—Additional charges— Referee Court enhanced compensation in land acquisition reference, awarding interest @ 6% per annum from date of possession, 15% compulsory acquisition charges, and additional compensation @ 15% per annum from date of notification under S.4 till payment—High Court maintained enhancement—Supreme Court held that findings of Referee Court were based on consideration of necessary legal components; no misreading or non-reading of evidence shown—Interference not warranted. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) —Condonation of delay—Government litigation—Principles— Appeal filed by Province of Sindh barred by 30 days—Application for condonation contained only generic assertions of administrative delays in obtaining certified copies and processing file—Held, law aids the vigilant, not the indolent—Mere inter-departmental correspondence or procedural delay does not constitute “sufficient cause”—Government and autonomous bodies cannot be accorded preferential treatment; cases to be dealt with uniformly like ordinary litigants—Routine filing of mechanical applications for condonation deprecated. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) —Condonation of delay—Doctrine of equality before law— Court emphasized that careless or intentional delay undermines rule of law—Condonation cannot be granted as a matter of course—Latin maxim “Leges vigilantibus non dormientibus subserviunt” applied—Law of limitation does not create a right but extinguishes stale claims through efflux of time—Duty of Court to consider limitation even if not raised. (d) Administration of justice —Government litigation—Duty of vigilance— Trend of belated appeals by government departments on stereotypical excuses condemned—Such approach viewed as mala fide or intended to benefit opposite side—Court reiterated principle that adjudication on merits cannot override the mandatory requirement of limitation without sufficient cause. Cited Cases Regional Police Officer, Dera Ghazi Khan Region v. Riaz Hussain Bukhari 2024 SCMR 1021 = 2023 SCP 323. Disposition Appeal dismissed, being barred by limitation as well as on merits.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The petitioner was appointed as Ombudsperson Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace, Punjab vide notification dated 17.06.2021 for a term of two years. Subsequently, subsections (5) and (6) in Section 7 were added by way of the Amendment Act which was published in the Punjab Gazette (Extraordinary) on 12.01.2022, whereby term of office of the Ombudsperson has been stipulated for four years. Such amendment has not only fixed tenure of the Ombudsperson to be four years but also curtailed her eligibility for extension of tenure or re-appointment. The commencement clause of the Amendment Act clearly stipulates that it "shall come into force at once." This legislative phrasing indicates an immediate application of the amended provisions upon their enactment. Since the Amendment Act, including the revised tenure stipulated in the amended Section 7, came into force while the petitioner was still serving as the Ombudsperson, the extended tenure of four years became applicable to her office. In the absence of any legislative expression within the Amendment Act explicitly suggesting that the new tenure provision would only apply to future appointments, it squarely applied to the petitioner and the notification dated 01.04.2022 was lawfully issued by the Government of the Punjab to give immediate effect to the Amendment Act whereby tenure of the petitioner as Ombudsperson was extended to four years with effect from her initial taking of charge on 18.06.2021.

Summary: Summary pending