Summary: Bail Allowed----The appeal sought post-arrest bail in connection with a case registered under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) at a police station in Nowshera Kalan, District Nowshera.The petitioner was accused of being involved in an incident where the petitioner and co-accused allegedly attacked the complainant party using firearms, which led to the death of a member of the complainant's party.During the hearing, the petitioner's legal representative argued that the petitioner had been unjustly implicated in the case. They contended that the roles attributed to the accused, including the petitioner, were vague and lacking specific details. The absence of weapon recovery from the petitioner's possession was highlighted. Additionally, conflicting versions of events were presented, and a separate FIR had been filed by the petitioner's party against the complainant party, indicating a dispute.The legal team representing the State opposed the appeal, referencing the petitioner's specific role as mentioned in the crime report and emphasizing the petitioner's nine-year absence. Legal precedents were cited, asserting that mere registration of a counter version should not be sufficient grounds for granting bail.After careful consideration of both sides and examination of the evidence, the Court noted that the petitioner was accused of being part of a group that used firearms in an attack leading to a fatality. However, specific details regarding the petitioner's role were lacking. The Court acknowledged that both parties presented conflicting accounts of the incident, indicating a need for further investigation.The Court held that the petitioner's absconsion alone should not serve as the sole basis for denying bail. Legal precedents were cited to support this stance, emphasizing the necessity of assessing the unique circumstances of each case.As a result, the petition was treated as an appeal, and the Court granted the appeal, overturning the Peshawar High Court's order.

Summary: NAB/Bail After Arrest--Bail denied---The case revolves around allegations related to a deceptive scheme conducted through a fabricated online company. The petitioner is accused of being part of a fraudulent operation that encouraged people to invest money with the promise of a regular monthly profit. Approximately 1700 individuals collectively invested a significant amount before the fraudulent nature of the scheme was discovered. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested.The alleged mastermind behind the fraudulent scheme established the deception using a fake identity. The petitioner joined this operation and held a prominent role within the company. Alongside other individuals, the petitioner operated from an office. As the investigation progressed, more individuals came forward with statements linking the petitioner to the receipt of funds from the fraudulent scheme. Substantial amounts of money were covertly transferred using cryptocurrencies.The petitioner's legal representative argued that their client was, in fact, a victim of the scam. They claimed that the petitioner initially invested money with the intention of earning profits and did not have any intention to defraud others. The legal representative also argued that the delay in filing a reference by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) made the petitioner's continued detention unjustified.After considering the arguments and examining the case record, the Court noted the large number of victims who suffered financial losses due to the fraudulent scheme. Each victim directly accused the petitioner of soliciting deposits under false pretenses. Given the diverse backgrounds of these victims, it was deemed unlikely that they would coordinate fabricated claims.Evidence confirmed the establishment of an office in a specific location, as attested to by multiple witnesses in their statements. The petitioner's claim of being an innocent victim, supported by a minor deposit, lacked concrete evidence. Faced with compelling contrary evidence, the Court found the petitioner's claim of innocence to be weak. Considering these factors, the Court upheld the High Court's decision to deny bail, as it was based on substantial evidence against the petitioner.

Summary: (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)- -S. 5-Condonation of delay-Scope-Applicant sought condonation of delay occasioned due to negligence of its counsel but when the applicant was confronted with query as to whether any action was taken against the said counsel on account of such default, the applicant conceded that no action whatsoever was taken in this regard-Applicant was obliged to explain delay of each and every day-Incumbent upon the applicant to establish sufficient cause for the same-Application of condonation of delay being devoid of merits was dismissed. Abdul Majid and others v. Mst. Zubeda Begum and others 2007 SCMR 866 ref. Rai Muhammad Riaz (deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Ejaz Ahmed and others PLD 2021 SC 761 rel. (b) Limitation- -Justice, equity and good conscience do not override the law of limitation-Object of law of limitation is to prevent stale demands and it ought to be construed strictly-Hurdles of limitation cannot be crossed under the guise of any hardships or imagined inherent discretionary jurisdiction of the Court-Ignorance, negligence, mistake or hardship do not save limitation, nor does poverty of the parties. Khushi Muhammad through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Fazal Bibi PLD 2016 SC 872 ref. (c) Limitation- -Void order-Scope-Hurdle of limitation cannot be softened merely on the ground that order under challenge in appeal is illegal or unlawful order-Even if order under challenge is void the person challenging such order has to explain the delay in filing the proceedings. Abid Hussain v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan through Chief of Air Staff Islamabad 2021 SCMR 645; Haji Wajdad v. Provincial Government through Secretary Board of Revenue Government of Balochistan, Quetta and others 2020 SCMR 2046 and Messrs Blue Star Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax and others 2013 SCMR 587 ref. (d) Limitation- -Question of limitation cannot be termed as mere technicality-Such has paramount importance, as with the afflux of time certain rights do accrue in favour of the adversary, which cannot be taken away in a slipshod manner-Object of framing the law for the purpose of regulating the limitation was to push the parties to file their respective claims within stipulated period-Time period provided for filing the proceedings in terms of suit, appeal, review or revision petition cannot be lightly ignored or brushed aside-Question of limitation is as important as jurisdiction of the Court. (e) Limitation- -Every litigant is expected to prosecute his cause with all diligence and hilt and if somebody opts to thwart the process of law, he is liable to face the penal consequences provided therein-Courts cannot sit as silent spectators in such circumstances and shut their eyes on the flagrant violation of law. C.M. No.3-C of 2017

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S. 164-Power to record statements and confessions-Scope-Word "any Magistrate"means as explained in S. 164, Cr.P.C. includes Judicial Magistrate and Special Judicial Magistrate as per definition of"Magistrate"given in S.4(ma), Cr.P.C. even if they have no jurisdiction in the case-Such Magistrates are authorized to record any statement or confession during investigation or afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial. Mst. Amna Shaheen v. State and others PLJ 2021 Lah. 645 and Mst. Asma Bibi v. State and others (Writ Petition No. 2335 of 2021) ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -Ss. 164, 36 & 37-Power to record statements and confessions-Ordinary powers of Magistrates-Additional powers conferrable on Magistrates-Scope-Investigation is a process of collection of evidence wherever it may be found, a recurring offence in more than one jurisdiction supply part evidence in a place and pieces are brought together to complete the picture-Authorized Criminal Courts are competent to inquire or try an offence as per scheme regulated under Ss.177 to 189 of Cr.P.C.-Magistrates were given ordinary and special powers to play a role in the processes like remand, issuance of arrest warrants, search warrants, proclamation, inquest, bails, recording of statements and confessions-Such ordinary and special powers are entrusted under Ss. 36 & 37 of Cr.P.C. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -Ss. 164, 6, 12 & 17-Power to record statements and confessions-Classes of Criminal Courts-Subordinate Magistrates-Limits of their jurisdiction-Subordination of Magistrates and Benches to District Magistrate-Scope-Section 164, Cr.P.C. falls in Chap. XIV of Cr.P.C. which encompasses Ss. 154 to 176, Cr.P.C., it entails steps relating to investigation in which Magistrate performs different functions-Under S. 6 of Cr.P.C. there are different classes of Magistrates under Code of Criminal Procedure and such Magistrates can be appointed by the Provincial Government in any district whose local areas are defined within which they may exercise all or any of the powers they are invested with under the Code-Under S. 12 of Cr.P.C. local limits of their jurisdiction can also be defined which shall extend throughout any district where they are posted-Sessions Judge of the area under S. 17 of Cr.P.C. can also frame rules or give special orders consistent with the Code as to the distribution of business among such Magistrates because they are subordinate to the Sessions Judge by virtue of said section. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -Ss. 36, 37, 39 & 40-Ordinary powers of Magistrates-Additional powers conferrable on Magistrates-Mode of conferring powers-Powers of officers appointed-Scope-Ordinary powers of Magistrates which they can exercise by virtue of their office as a Magistrate are mentioned in S. 36 of Cr.P.C. and such powers are listed in the Third Schedule of Cr.P.C.-Similarly, under S. 37, Cr.P.C., Magistrates can be conferred upon additional powers as mentioned in Fourth Schedule of Cr.P.C. and mode of conferring powers as mentioned in S. 39 of Cr.P.C. is reflective of the fact that powers can be conferred by the Provincial Government either by name or in virtue of their office or classes of officials generally by their official title-Once the power is given, the Magistrate shall unless the Provincial Government otherwise directs or has otherwise directed, exercise the same powers in the local area in which he is so appointed-Until the Provincial Government withdraws all or any powers once conferred under the Code on any Magistrate, he shall continue exercising such powers wherever he is appointed as a Magistrate as ordained in S. 40 of Cr.P.C. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -Ss. 164 & 12-Subordinate Magistrates-Local limits of jurisdiction-Power to record statements and confessions-Scope-Ordinary Powers of Magistrate as enumerated in Third Schedule of Cr.P.C. include power to record statement and confession under S. 164, Cr.P.C. which fact is listed at Serial No. '7a' of said Schedule under ordinary powers of a Magistrate of the First Class-Magistrate appointed in a district is whenever approached for the purpose of recording statement of a witness he cannot refuse recording thereof on the ground that case is one which has not been registered in his local district-Section 12(2) of Cr.P.C. means that a Magistrate working in a district can act as a trial court and exercise ordinary powers as Magistrate within the precincts of that district only-Magistrate appointed in a District 'A' and he while posted as such cannot be called to District 'B' for exercising his ordinary powers as Magistrate but if somebody approaches him from any other district and solicits to exercise his ordinary powers like recording of statement or confession, he cannot refuse to honour such request when S. 164, Cr.P.C. authorizes him to forward such statements or confessions to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried-Such is also in consonance with the Explanation attached to S. 164, Cr.P.C. which says that it is not necessary that Magistrate receiving and recording a confession or statement should be a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case. Mst. Amna Shaheen v. State and others PLJ 2021 Lah. 645 ref. (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S. 164-Power to record statements and confessions-Scope-Scope of investigation in a case usually extends to collection of different pieces of evidence which can be gathered from wherever they may be found either within the district or out of district-Some of the offences have a recurring effect which starts in one district but ensued in another; in such eventuality if a witness is found out of district or an accused is arrested as such and police, in order to secure the evidence cannot take risk of their transportation before the concerned district, can produce them before the nearest Magistrate, so that evidence may be recorded at every early possibility, that is the reason S. 164, Cr.P.C., contains word"any Magistrate", even if he has no jurisdiction at all-Statements and confessions promptly recorded carry comparably more evidentiary value because there remain remote chances to think, concoct or fabricate the facts, even influence of external factors are ruled out. Lal Singh v. Emperor AIR 1938 All 625 and Mst. Amina Bibi v. Sessions Judge Layyah, District Layyah and others 1999 PCr.LJ 2044 ref. Muhammad Sarfraz Khan v. The Crown PLD 1953 Lah. 495 rel. (g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -Ss. 82, 84, 85, 86, 99 & 186-Where warrant may be executed-Warrant directed to police-officer for execution outside jurisdiction-Procedure on arrest of person against whom warrant issued-Procedure by Magistrate before whom person arrested is brought-Disposal of things found in search beyond jurisdiction-Power to issue summons or warrant for offence committed beyond local jurisdiction-Magistrate's procedure on arrest-Scope-Some of the functions, Magistrate performs during investigation, like when an accused is required to be removed to tribal area for the purpose of investigation where the FIR is registered; Magistrate, in whose district such accused is available, is authorized to inquire and then order for removal out of jurisdiction-Likewise, when a warrant is issued to a police officer, he is authorized to execute it throughout Pakistan as per S. 82 of Cr.P.C. and if he arrests the accused out of the district, he is required to produce him before the Magistrate of that district as per Ss. 84 & 85 of Cr.P.C. in order to regulate his custody so as to take security or release him on bail as mentioned in S. 86 of Cr.P.C. or authorize his removal to district concerned-If at that time police officer considers that statement of accused or confession is to be secured, he can request that Magistrate and it is not expected that Magistrate should refuse to record his statement or confession simply on the ground of lacking territorial jurisdiction-Under S. 99 of Cr.P.C. when in pursuance to a search warrant, anything is found beyond jurisdiction, police officer is required to produce that thing before the Magistrate of that jurisdiction who authorizes its removal to the court concerned-Even under S.186, Cr.P.C., when any person is arrested in his local jurisdiction, Magistrate can attend to the case for transportation of accused to the respective district for the purpose of trial. All such functions are to facilitate the investigation of a case and not to deflect it. Shabina Naz v. Special Judicial Magistrate and another 2011 MLD 722; Fozia Shabbir v. Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore and 8 others PLD 2006 Lah. 304; Fozia Perveen v. Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Khushab 2007 YLR 2919; Manzoor Hussain v. Special Judical Magistrate and 2 others 2008 YLR 2679; Salman Akram Raja and another v. Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and others 2013 SCMR 203; Fateh Shah v. Muhammad Hassan and 2 others 1983 PCr.LJ 1893 and Mst. Kalsoom Bibi v. District and Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur and another 2009 MLD 421 ref. (h) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S. 164-Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 102-Power to record statement and confession-Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other disposition of property reduced to form of document-Scope-No prejudice is caused nor statement recorded becomes useless because when any such statement or confession is recorded by a Magistrate out of the district, he is required to forward the same to the Magistrate by whom case is to be inquired into or tried and it is not necessary to call such Magistrate as witness in the trial in support of statement recorded by him. (i) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)- -Arts. 102 & 91-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 164, 364 & 533-Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other disposition of property reduced to form of document-Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence-Non-compliance of provisions of S.164 or 364-Scope-Article 102 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 provides that anything that is required under the law to be reduced to the form of a document, no witness is required to prove it but the document itself-Statement of an accused or his confession, though is admissible without calling the person who recorded it, but if it has not been recorded as per provisions of S.164 or 364 Cr.P.C., then, court shall take evidence that such person duly made the statement recorded and may call the Magistrate but if confession or statement of accused has been taken down in accordance with law, court shall presume its genuineness under Art. 91 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. (j) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)- -Arts. 91 & 102-Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence-Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other disposition of property reduced to form of document-Scope-Presumption under Art. 91 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, unless rebutted shall be a proof of fact contained in the statement or confession-Such document shall not preclude the admission of oral evidence as to the same fact as mentioned in Explanation 3 of Art. 102 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, Order, 1984. (k) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S. 164-Power to record statement and confession-Presence of accused-Scope-Objection is usually taken that statement of a witness recorded out of district deprives the accused to cross-examine the witness as per provision (1-A) of S. 164, Cr.P.C., because an opportunity to cross-examine the witness is mandatorily to be given to him-Word"may" used in the section makes it optional to record the statement in the presence of accused or not. Mst. Zainab Bibi v. S.H.O. and others 2003 YLR 3191 and Muhammad Yousaf v. State and 12 others 2002 YLR 397 ref. Muhammad Amjad Ansari, Assistant Advocate General. Nisar Ahmad Virk, Deputy Prosecutor General.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199-Writs of mandamus and certiorari-Government corporations and agencies-Factors that determine whether such a corporation or agency was a person performing functions in connection with affairs of the Federation or Province against which writs of mandamus or certiorari could be issued stated. For determining whether a Government corporation or agency is a person performing functions in connection with affairs of the Federation or Province against which writs of mandamus or certiorari could be issued, the diagnostic tool is functional realism and not facial cosmetics. It is immaterial whether the corporation is created by a statute or under a statute. The test is whether it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and not as to how it is created. The inquiry is not as to how the juristic person is born but why it has been brought into existence. There is no cut and dried formula, which would provide the correct division of corporations into those which are instrumentalities or agencies of Government and those which are not. Notwithstanding the above, few things are clear, firstly, if the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government; secondly, if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government; thirdly, where the financial assistance of the Government is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character, and fourthly, existence of deep and pervasive Government control may afford an indication that the corporation is a Government agency or instrumentality. T he Constitutional Law of the-Security State-by Arthur S. Miller (10) Stanford Law Review 620 at 664; Salahuddin and 2 others v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd., Tokht Bhai and 10 others PLD 1975 SC 244; R.D. Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others (1979) I S.C.R. 1042 and Echo West International (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore v. Government of Punjab through Secretary and 4 others PLD 2009 SC 406 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199-Writs of mandamus and certiorari-Pakistan Television Corporation Limited (‘the PTVC’)-Instrumentality or agency of the Government-Pakistan Television Corporation Limited performed functions in connection with affairs of the Federation against which a writ of mandamus or certiorari can be issued. Perusal of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Pakistan Television Corporation Limited (‘the PTVC’) showed that its Board of Directors are appointed by the Government of Pakistan. The PTVC is a public limited company with an authorized capital of Rs.3.000 billion and the Government holds entire paid up share capital of Rs.1529.300 million. The objective of the PTVC is to establish a network of television stations in Pakistan by erecting, constructing, maintaining and improving television stations at places approved by the Government of Pakistan, and to carry out instructions of Government of Pakistan with regard to general pattern of policies of programmes, announcements and news etc. It will thus, be seen that the Government of Pakistan has full control of the working of the PTVC and it would not be incorrect to say that in the affairs of the PTVC, the voice and hands are of the Government of Pakistan. The PTVC is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and qualifies as a person performing functions of the Federation against which a writ of mandamus or certiorari can be issued. (c) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199-Government instrumentalities or agencies-Commercial and contractual transactions and administrative decisions-Judicial review-Principles governing judicial review of commercial/contractual transactions and administrative decisions undertaken by Government instrumentalities or agencies stated. Following are principles governing judicial review of commercial/contractual transactions and administrative decisions undertaken by Government instrumentalities or agencies stated: (i) The basic requirement is fairness in action by the Government, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to judicial review only to the extent that the Government must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the Government acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities; (ii) In the matter of awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the Government. Unless the action of the Government is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by Courts is not warranted; (iii) If the Government or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding a contract, interference by Court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government; (iv) The Court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made; (v) The Court does not have the expertise to correct an administrative decision. If a review of an administrative decision is permitted the court will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible, and; (vi) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1947) 2 All ER 680; Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans (1982) 3 All ER 141; Regina v. Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Ex parte ARGYLL GROUP PLC (1986) 1 W.L.R 763; Regina v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, Ex parte Chetnik Developments Ltd. (1988) AC 858; Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Brind and others (1991) AC 696; Tata Cellular v. Union of India (UOI) (AIR 1996 SC 11); Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others 1998 SCMR 2268; Messrs Ittehad Cargo Service and 2 others v. Messrs Syed Tasneem Hussain Naqvi and others PLD 2001 SC 116; Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2012 SCMR 455; Habibullah Energy Limited and another v. WAPDA through Chairman and others PLD 2014 SC 47 and Premier Battery Industries Private Limited v. Karachi Water and Sewerage Board and others 2018 SCMR 365 ref. (d) Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XXII of 2002)- -S. 5(1)-Public Procurement Rules, 2004, R. 4-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199-Partnership/joint venture agreement between Pakistan Television Corporation Limited (‘the PTVC’) and two private entities, ARY Communications Limited (the ARY) and Group M Pakistan Private Limited (‘Group M’) for broadcasting rights of a cricket league-Legality-Plea of petitioner-company that PTVC without asking it or other broadcasters whether they were interested in collaborating with the PTVC, could not contract directly with ARY/Group M-Validity-Petitioner-company has a personal interest in the present litigation as it is motivated purely by its own economic interest, which fact was evident from its own letter asking the Managing Director, PTVC to cancel the agreement with the ARY/Group M and enter into partnership with it on the same terms-Petitioner-company has no cause of complaint and since it was not treated unfairly, there was no need to comment upon the application or otherwise, of the provisions of the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 and the Rules made thereunder, to the present case-Decision of the PTVC relating to execution of agreement forming business partnership/joint venture with the ARY/Group M, is bona fide and in public interest. Pakistan Television Corporation Limited (‘the PTVC’) is a State-owned corporation and in order to bring transparency in its commercial affairs, it is imperative that it should provide a level playing field to all public and private entities. Looking at the record of the present case, it is clear that the PTVC, complying with the said requirement of law, had solicited proposals for public-private partnership through a newspaper advertisement. This was a sufficient notice to the public at large. The petitioner-company should have been vigilant for the growth of its business and taking advantage of this opportunity, should have submitted its proposal to the PTVC. It did not do so and wasted its time and thus is protesting at a belated stage. It is also on record that in response to newspaper advertisement, four companies ventured their proposals and the PTVC entered into business agreement with the ARY/Group M through a competitive bidding process and thus, the complaint of the petitioner-company is not justified and as a result, it also cannot be permitted to invoke the discretionary power of the High Court for the grant of an order in the nature of a writ of certiorari or mandamus as it has failed to show that the agreement forming business partnership/joint venture between the PTVC and ARY/Group M, has occasioned some injustice to it. The Queen v. Lord Newborough (1869) LR 4 Q B 585 and Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1973 SC 236 ref. On the contrary, in the present case, the petitioner-company has a personal interest in the present litigation as it is motivated purely by its own economic interest and this is evident from its own letter asking the Managing Director, PTVC to cancel the agreement with the ARY/Group M and enter into partnership with it on the same terms. It means that the terms on which the PTVC has agreed to form partnership/joint venture with the ARY/Group M are flawless and financially sound, and that the present petition is not in the public interest but for personal economic interest of the petitioner-company. Petitioner-company just wants the entire process reversed so that it can get the contract of broadcasting rights for the cricket league. By all means, this is a malicious attack, and given such circumstances, the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction would amount to allowing the petitioner-company to throw spanner in the economic affairs of the PTVC. The petitioner-company has no cause of complaint and since it was not treated unfairly, there was no need to comment upon the application or otherwise, of the provisions of the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 and the Rules made thereunder, to the present case. Javed Ibrahim Paracha v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2004 SC 482; Moulvi Iqbal Haider v. Capital Development Authority and others PLD 2006 SC 394; Echo West International (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore v. Government of Punjab through Secretary and 4 others PLD 2009 SC 406; Petrosin Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd., Singapore and 2 others v. Oil and Gas Development Company Ltd. through Managing Director, Islamabad 2010 SCMR 306; Muhammad Shafique Khan Sawati v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Water and Power, Islamabad and others 2015 SCMR 851 and Premier Battery Industries Private Limited v. Karachi Water and Sewerage Board and others 2018 SCMR 365 ref. It is clear that the decision of the PTVC relating to execution of agreement forming business partnership/joint venture with the ARY/Group M, is bona fide and is in public interest. Constitutional petitions were dismissed. (e) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199-Public interest litigation-Aggrieved person-Scope-‘Public spirited person’ litigating in public interest-Meaning of-aggrieved person-included a public spirited person who brings to the notice of the High Court a matter of public importance requiring enforcement of Fundamental Rights-Public interest litigation undertaken by a person must in the first place clearly demonstrate its complete bona fide that such litigation is not being undertaken to serve a private interest but is aimed at serving a public interest, good or welfare-Judicial review cannot be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest. Khawar Bashir, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan (in Writ Petition No. 100 of 2022).

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Bail Befre Arrest in FIR No. 507/2021, dated 29 -09 -2021 U/s 406 PPC P.S Lohi Bhair, Islamabad.

Summary: ICA in WP 154/2022: A Deputationist Teacher in Islamabad is aggrieved of her repatriation orders back to KPK.