Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan- -Arts. 184(3) & 190-Administrative Committee of the Supreme Court, functions of-Implementation of directions/orders of the Supreme Court passed in its jurisdiction under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution-Nothing in law prevents the Supreme Court to hold administrative meetings with concerned agencies/functionaries to ensure that orders passed in public interest are being implemented-Executive functions of the Supreme Court inter alia include implementation of its orders and require executive functionaries to do so as per requirements of Art. 190 of the Constitution-If a judgment of the Court is not executed without reason, it has the effect of stagnating the law and in effect, impeding the system of administration of justice-For this reason the Supreme Court oversees its proceedings and their end result, especially those under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution owing to their nature and, due to the questions of public importance involved therein-As such, the directions issued in the Administrative Committee meeting of the Supreme Court are meant to oversee proper and timely implementation. (b) Sindh Regulation and Control (Use of Plots and Construction of Buildings) Ordinance (VIII of 2002)- -S. 5-Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 2002, Regln. 18-14.4-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 184(3)-Matter concerning marriage halls on Main Korangi Road, Karachi, constructed illegally on residential plots and encroached land-Directions issued by the Supreme Court for demolition of such marriage halls-Applicants/interveners (owners of marriage halls) were unable to show the Court anything from the record which could establish that the plots/Marriage halls were regularized/converted after due process and in accordance with law and the applicable rules and regulations-Fact that the applicants/interveners did not have their regularization letters was enough to hold that the marriage halls were illegally constructed upon residential plots and were liable to be demolished-Marriage halls built upon residential plots and encroached lands were liable to be demolished in terms of orders of the Supreme Court and the conversions (of use of land) undertaken were liable to be reverted back to their original residential use. Admittedly the land in question is residential in nature. The only claim of the applicants/interveners is that they had acquired necessary permissions/NOCs from the housing society/ authorities before they started constructing the marriage halls. The applicants/interveners have admitted that they did not receive any letters of regularization in respect of their properties stating that the same had been regularized as marriage halls or, that their residential land was converted to commercial land Applicants/interveners relied upon an advertisement/notification issued by the Sindh Building Control Authority inviting the public to make applications for conversion of their residential plots into commercial/marriage halls. However, the applicants/interveners did not bring any material on record to show that their plots fulfilled the conditions and minimum qualifying area of plots prescribed in the said notification. Applicants/interveners knew that their buildings/marriage halls were wrongly built and so, attempted to get the same regularized. Such fact is sufficient to hold that the marriage halls were illegally built on residential plots, in violation of clear orders of the Supreme Court which provide that the Master Plan of Karachi city cannot be changed and all changes made thereto must be reverted and illegal buildings demolished. Abdul Karim v. Nasir Aslam Baig 2020 SCMR 111 ref. Even otherwise, the allotment letters given to the applicants/interveners by the housing societies did not permit them to build marriage halls on their plots. The applicants/interveners could have complained to the Registrar of Cooperative Housing Societies regarding any pressure exerted against them. However, no such complaint was on the record. There is nothing on the record to show that any FIR or complaint was registered to bring to the notice of the concerned authorities that there were any encroachers operating in the area who were trying to occupy the land of applicants/interveners prompting them to construct marriage halls. If the applicants/interveners were apprehensive about encroachments, they ought to have approached the concerned authorities so that their legitimate interests were adequately safeguarded. The applicants/interveners were unable to show the Court anything from the record which could establish that the plots/marriage halls were regularized/converted after due process and in accordance with law and the applicable rules and regulations. Regulation 18-14.4 of the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 2002 makes it clear that the applicants/interveners needed to have the regularization letters regarding the marriage halls. The fact that the applicants/interveners did not have their regularization letters is enough to hold that the marriage halls were illegally constructed upon residential plots and are liable to be demolished The marriage halls built upon residential plots and encroached lands are liable to be demolished in terms of orders of the Supreme Court and the conversions (of use of land) undertaken are liable to be reverted back to their original residential use. Dates of hearing: 9th April and 4th June, 2021.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Correction of date of Birth as per his CNIC in the service book

Summary: Bail After Arrest in FIR No. 01/2022, dated 01 -01 -2022, U/s 13 & 14 of PECA 2016 read with section 419/420/468/471& 109 PPC. P.S FIA Cyber Crime Circle, Islamabad.

Summary: Against dismissal of 22 -A.

Summary: Service / Inquiry: Petitioner is Asst. Director of FIR Cyber wing. He is under inquiry upon complaint of private lady regarding certain password access. Seeks change of inquiry officer.

Summary: Against impugned order dated 05.10.2019 whereby defendants are allowed to submit documents

Summary: Quashment of FIR No. 51, dated 19-12-2020, U/s 4 Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010, P.S FIA/ACC, Islamabad.

Summary: [(1) The acting charge appointment does not confer any vested right. (2) The question of eligibility is different from the question of fitness. (3) The ad-hoc employees cannot claim precedence in seniority over the regular employees. (4) The services rendered on ad-hoc basis cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority. (5) The phenomenon of antedated promotion is not novel or unique. It can be granted in the appropriate cases. (6) If the DPC meeting is not convened within a reasonable period, it creates frustration and despondence amongst the civil servants/judicial officers. (7) The unreasonable delay in the DPC meetings creates multiplicity of proceedings and litigation amongst the incumbents. (8) A cause of action is predominantly a technical legal term meant for the set of circumstances and facts which give rise to institute and lodge the claim in the court of law but on premature claims or grievances. (9) The effect of judgment in rem in this case]

Summary: Against Reinstatment into Service---The summary you provided discusses legal proceedings related to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012. The Act aimed to provide relief to employees who were appointed on a regular basis with the required qualifications and experience between certain dates and were subsequently dismissed, removed, or terminated. The Act required employees to file applications for reinstatement within 30 days of its commencement.The issue in question revolved around the eligibility of certain employees for reinstatement under the Act. The court considered whether the respondents were regular employees with the necessary qualifications and whether they had filed their reinstatement applications within the stipulated time frame.The court found that most of the respondents were not regular employees and did not fulfill the requirement of having the requisite qualifications and experience at the time of appointment. Additionally, it was noted that some of the respondents did not file their applications for reinstatement within the specified 30-day period after the Act's commencement. The court emphasized that the Act only applied to regular employees meeting specific criteria, and temporary or ad hoc employees were not eligible.The court also discussed the constitutionality of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012, in light of a similar federal law that was declared ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the constitution. The court highlighted the importance of having well-defined statutory rules of service for employees to ensure clarity and fairness in their employment conditions.Overall, the court set aside the impugned judgments and dismissed most of the appeals, concluding that the respondents did not meet the necessary criteria for reinstatement under the Act.