Summary: Education: MDCAT: Petitioner is aggrieved of irregulaties / discripencies / Hardship caused by MDCAT test for admission in MBBS. Challanges vires of rules for MDCAT. Further seeks restraining admission on basis of MDCAT.

Summary: Bail After Arrest in FIR No. 44/2021 dated 30-06-2021, U/s 10-11-20 PECA 2016 R/W 500/505/506/109 PPC. P.S FIA Cyber Crime, Islamabad.

Summary: Appreciation of evidence in a Criminal case. The role of Lalkara unless corroborated is not enough to record conviction of an accused.

Summary: Issue/Section of Laws:Suit for Specific Performance of agreement. Requirement of law that not only the plaintiff will prove the execution of agreement but also the payment of sale consideration, in case of failure the plaintiff cannot be held entitled for decree, either for specific performance or in alternate for recovery of amount allegedly paid.

Summary: It is very unfortunate state of affairs that we have noted and observed in many cases that the appointments to public posts are not made in a transparent manner. Such practice has eroded the public confidence on the selection process and it has become a general perception that the appointments in the departments are not made on merit but either on the direction of the political figures or some influential in the department. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Zahid Akhtar Vs Govt: of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development, Lahore and 2 others reported as (PLD 1995 SC 530) while commenting upon the conduct and attitude of the Government servants observed: Government servant should comply wily with those orders/directions of his superior which were legal and within his competence---Compliance of illegal or an incompetent direction/order could neither be justified on the plea of same having been issued from superior authority nor same could be defended on Uri; ground that non-compliance thereof, could have exposed concerned Government servant to the risk of disciplinary action---Role of bureaucracy in the administrative set-up highlighted. Tamed and subservient bureaucracy can neither be helpful to Government nor it is expected to inspire public confidence in the administration. Good governance is largely dependent on an upright, honest and strong bureaucracy. Therefore, mere submission to the will of superior is not a commendable trait in a bureaucrat. Elected representatives placed as incharge of administrative departments of Government are not expected to carry with them a deep insight in the complexities of administration. The duty of a bureaucrat, therefore, is to apprise these elected representatives the nicety of administration and. provide them correct guidance in discharge of their functions in accordance with the law. Succumbing to each and every order of direction of such elected functionaries without bringing to their notice, the legal infirmities in suchorder's/directions may sometimes amount to an act of indiscretion on the part of bureaucrats which may not be justifiable on the plane of hierarchical discipline. A Government servant is expected tocomply only those orders/directions of his superior which are legal and within his competence. Compliance of an illegal or an incompetent direction/order can neither be justified 9n the plea that it came from a superior authority nor it could be defended on the ground that its non-compliance wouldhave exposed the concerned Government servant to the risk of disciplinary action. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Roshan Khan, Vs Director Schools and Literacy NWFP, Peshawar and 4 others reported as 2007 SCMR 599 reiterated the same view and added that: It is for quite a long time, that some of the peoples representatives, whose sacred and scholarly job it was to legislate while honourably confining themselves to the dignified mansions of the assemblies, have started undesirable, dishonest and corrupt interference into the purely Executive/Administrative domain of appointments, promotions and transfers of civil servants. By now it has turned into a mafia that does not care about Law, Rules, Regulations, Rules of Business and repeated deprecations by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and High Courts. All forces seem to have whittled down before the exploitation and blackmail by some people whose weight, and not legislation, matters. This is bound to destroy the institutions, if not already destroyed.

Summary: Pending

Summary: In case 2004 MLD 402 learned Single Bench of this Court while pondering upon the powers of learned executing court to issue a commission has held that learned Civil Judge during the execution proceedings cannot appoint local commission. The learned Civil Judge being the executing court was not vested with any power to appoint local commission.

Summary: An application for restoration of an earlier application for restoration of main appeal, both of which have been dismissed for non-prosecution, cannot be treated as an application under Order 41 rule 19 CPC, for which, limitation period of 30-days is provided under Article 168 of the Limitation Act, 1908 rather the said application, even if filed without mentioning any section, for all intents and purposes is an application under Section 151 CPC, for which, as limitation is not expressly provided under any article of the Limitation Act; hence, residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act providing limitation of three years for filing the same, would be applicable. Impugned order being vague and non-speaking order cannot be sustained.

Summary: Quo Warranto--The text emphasizes the shift from the initial practice of constituting the Election Commission for each general election to the establishment of a continuous body through constitutional amendments. The eligibility criteria for Commission members also underwent changes over the years. Initially, only sitting High Court Judges were considered as potential members. However, later amendments introduced the concept of retired high court judges as candidates, reflecting a significant shift in the selection process.Another crucial development mentioned in the text is the inclusion of additional categories for potential Commission members. Retired senior civil servants and technocrats were introduced as possible candidates, broadening the pool of eligible individuals. Furthermore, the imposition of an upper age limit for potential candidates, with specific ages for Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and members, brought further complexity to the selection process.The text highlights a potential issue arising from these changes, specifically regarding retired Judges' eligibility. Due to the combination of the upper age limit and the requirement of being retired, there could be a limited window during which retired Judges would be eligible for appointment. This unintended consequence raises concerns about the practicality of finding suitable candidates within such constraints.To address these concerns, the concept of "reading in" is introduced. This approach involves interpreting the Constitution dynamically, taking into account the spirit and intent behind constitutional amendments. The text suggests that in cases where constitutional amendments unintentionally lead to imbalances or unintended consequences, the principle of "reading in" could be applied to maintain the constitutional intent while avoiding practical challenges. This would involve interpreting the Constitution in a way that aligns with its evolving meaning and purpose.In conclusion, the text navigates through the historical changes in the composition and criteria of the Election Commission in Pakistan, highlighting the challenges and unintended outcomes of these alterations. It introduces the concept of "reading in" as a potential solution to maintain the constitutional intent and address unintended consequences stemming from constitutional amendments.

Summary: Background: The respondent, filed a writ petition challenging a tender notice published on 22.05.2020. The writ petition was fixed for preliminary arguments on 12.08.2020, but on that date, the respondent sought to withdraw the petition due to formal defects and requested permission to file a new petition. The High Court allowed the withdrawal and granted permission to file a fresh petition, which led to the present appeal by Raja Shoukat Hayat & Co. ----Issues: 1- Whether the High Court's decision to allow the withdrawal of the writ petition with permission to file a fresh petition was lawful and justified. 2- Whether the application by the respondent sufficiently demonstrated formal defects or other grounds necessary to justify the withdrawal and refiling of the petition. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Order XXIII, Rule 1, CPC: This rule allows a plaintiff to withdraw a suit and file a new one under certain conditions, primarily when there are formal defects or other sufficient grounds that would cause the original suit to fail. The Court emphasized that permission to withdraw and refile should not be granted lightly or as a matter of routine but requires the Court's satisfaction that the conditions are met. --Application Evaluation: The Court found that the respondent's application did not clearly specify the formal defects or the particular documents missing that justified the withdrawal and refiling of the petition. The application contained vague assertions that did not meet the necessary legal standard to grant such permission. --High Court's Decision: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not providing a detailed explanation or identifying specific defects or documents that warranted the withdrawal. The decision was deemed not a speaking order, as it lacked sufficient reasoning based on the application’s content. ----Legal Precedents: The judgment referenced several legal precedents, including Muhammad Yar vs. Muhammad Amin [2013 SCMR 464], Bashir Ahmed Khan v. Azad Govt. and another [1997 SCR 67 (B)], and Karim Gul and another v. Shahzad Gul and another [1970 SCMR 141], which emphasize the importance of clear and specific grounds for granting withdrawal and refiling permissions.