Summary: PLJ 2021 Islamabad 107 ---Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 - Article 199 ----Legal Issues: --Regularization of Contractual Employees and Doctrine of Past and Closed Transactions - The petitioners sought regularization benefits from an earlier date, challenging the regularization of respondents who were appointed as Junior Engineers in 2007. The court noted that the respondents, who were engineering graduates, were regularized based on meeting qualification criteria, while petitioners, being diploma holders, did not meet the same criteria. --Authority to Regularize and Promotion Eligibility - The Managing Director of the company had authorized regularization up to EG-V level, following the Rules that require one year of contractual service. Since the respondents were duly qualified and met the regularization criteria, the court found no basis for reopening their regularization, applying the doctrine of past and closed transactions. ----Ruling: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the respondents' regularization as valid and finding no irregularity in the company's decision-making process concerning the eligibility and qualifications for regularization and promotion. ---Judgment Result: Petition dismissed. -----Background: The petitioners, who were initially appointed as Senior Engineers (Civil) in the 1990s in OGDCL, challenged the regularization and subsequent promotions of other employees (Respondents No. 2-11) hired later in 2007 as Junior Engineers. The petitioners argued they were senior to these respondents and entitled to promotion to higher executive grades based on their tenure and previous promotions. They claimed that the respondents were unjustly promoted over them, benefiting from regularization and promotions as per the respondent company’s Board decision in 2015. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioners were entitled to promotions over the respondents, given their prior service. -----2- Whether the respondents’ regularization from their initial appointment date and subsequent promotions were valid. -----3- Whether the doctrine of "past and closed transaction" applied, barring reopening the case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition, holding that: The respondents were qualified engineering graduates, whereas the petitioners held diplomas, creating a significant qualification difference. The respondents were regularized and promoted based on the OGDCL Board's decision, which had not been challenged within a reasonable time. The competent authority’s decision to regularize respondents from their initial appointment date was valid, given their qualifications and fulfillment of necessary criteria. The doctrine of "past and closed transaction" applied, precluding reopening of the respondents’ promotion and regularization matter. The Managing Director had discretionary authority to regularize contract employees up to EG-V, provided they met the rules' criteria. ----Citations/Precedents: Syed Tahir Abbas Shah vs. OGDCL through M.D. Head Office, Islamabad and another, 2011 SCMR 1912 Zulfiqar-ul-Husnain and 19 others vs. Oil and Gas Development Corporation, 2003 SCMR 1115

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Bail Cancellation in Case FIR No. 97/20 dated 20.03.2020 Offence U/s 302/324/337/34 PPC, PS Shalimar, Islamabad

Summary: PLJ 2021 Islamabad 195 Present Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri J GHULAM AHMAD QURESHI - - Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER CDA SECTOR G - 11 ISLAMABAD and another - - Respondents WP No 4158 of 2016 decided on 2932021 Islamabad Residential Sector Zoning (Building Control) Regulations 2005 - - - - - - Regln 217 (1) (2) (3) (4) - - House was rented out for residential purposes - - Lease agreement - - Non - conforming uses - - Violation of building by - laws - - Legal notice - - Ejectment petition - - Accepted - - vacation of house by tenant - - Imposition of fine - - Responsibility of - - Filing of appeal dismissed - - Challenge to - - According to regulations ownerallottee is responsible to follow building By - laws of Capital Development Authority - - In instant case tenant had left premises before 15122014 and impugned order was passed on 29092016 ie after about 2 years of vacating house by tenant so according to law tenant cannot be held responsible by CDA for any violation after vacation of premises - - It is sole responsibility of ownerallottee to rent out premises for residential purposes only as and when any violation of building By - laws has committed by tenant ownerallottee is bound to get premises vacated or to get violation removed by tenant but in instant case before issuance of notice by CDA ownerallottee has not taken any action against his tenant for putting residential house to non - confirming use which reflects that said violation was carried out with consent of ownerallottee - - In regulations words owner and occupant are mentioned who are liable for conviction of fine etc so both are responsible but if tenantoccupant has vacated premises then only owner is liable for penalties - - Petition was dismissed [Pp 198 199] A B Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Art 199 - - Jurisdiction Concurrent orders - - It is well settled that Certiorari is only available to quash a decision for an error of law - - It will also be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction when an inferior Court or a tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction or fails to exercise its jurisdiction or where Court or a tribunal acts illegally in exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction and it decides a matter in violation of principle of natural justice - - High Court while issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction - - High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction will not review findings of facts reached by inferior Court or a tribunal - - Petitioner made no submission on point as to how concurrent orders passed by Court of Deputy Commissioner CDA dated 26032014 and Court of Deputy Commissioner ICT exercising powers of Commissioner CDA Islamabad dated 29092016 were consequence of an error of law or without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction [Pp 199 202] C D 2020 SCMR 1041 PLD 2020 SC 1 2019 SCMR 919 Malik Muhammad Zulfiqar Advocate for Petitioner Mr Rehan Seerat Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Petition dismissed

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: In a Banking Suit (i). A plaintiff is not required to wait for the decision of an application for leave to defend before filing interlocutory applications which include and are not limited to application for interim injunctions, etc.; (ii) the defendant in ordinary circumstances is generally barred from filing interlocutory applications before decision of application for leave to defend; (iii). The bar on defendant on filing interlocutory applications during pendency of application for leave to defend though strict is not absolute and Banking Court has inherent jurisdiction to entertain such applications in exceptional circumstances, which may, inter alia, include but not restricted to (a) an application for restoration of an application for leave to defend dismissed for non-prosecution, (b) an application for rejection of plaint, etc.; (iv) the application for rejection of plaint is a special kind of application, different from other interlocutory applications for the reason that the Court itself is vested with suo motu powers to reject plaint at any stage in case it does not disclose cause of action, does not conform to the provisions of the Ordinance or is otherwise barred by law; (v) in cases the plaint shows cause of action, the plaint of suit may be rejected on the basis of the other material available on record or the defence taken by the defendant which ordinary is done after the application for leave to defend is decided; (vi) grounds taken in application for rejection of plaint may also be treated as a ground for grant of application for leave to defend, which has to be considered on its own merits and if the circumstances of the case so require, leave may be granted on the said grounds; and (vii) dismissal of application for leave to defend does not mean that the suit is to be decreed in all cases and the court retains the powers to reject the plaint of the suit or dismiss the same even thereafter if the plaintiff fails to make out a case for passing decree in the matter.

Summary: The petitioner's counsel argued that the High Court had failed to consider the documented banking transactions, which constituted "definite information" under section 122(5) of the Ordinance. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel supported the Appellate Tribunal's view and contended that the High Court's refusal to interfere was within the bounds of the law and did not warrant probing the factual controversy. The Supreme Court, after examining the records, ruled that "definite information" under section 122(5) did apply in this case, considering the banking transactions and the respondent's failure to substantiate business activities with M/s Shujabad Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that the Department's determination of income and tax liability, along with the penalty, was justified under the Ordinance. Consequently, the High Court's impugned order was overturned, and the orders passed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) and the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue were restored. The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed by the Court.

Summary: [Importance of forensic science and DNA - admissibility and corroborative value]The case involves the rape, murder, and capital punishment of an eight-year-old girl named Rimsha Bibi. The petitioner, Ali Haider, was convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, as well as imprisonment for life under Section 376. The Lahore High Court upheld the convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court reviewed the circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies, the petitioner's confession, medical evidence, and DNA test reports, which matched the DNA found on the victim. The court highlighted the importance of modern forensic science, specifically DNA technology, in criminal investigations. It emphasized the admissibility and reliability of DNA test reports as evidence under the relevant laws. The court addressed the issue of admissibility under Section 510 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), stating that while certain reports of experts are per se admissible, DNA test reports require the expert to appear as a witness. However, the court noted that DNA test reports prepared by experts from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (PFSA) are per se admissible. The court concluded that the DNA test report in this case was admissible and upheld the convictions and sentences imposed on the petitioner. The judgment emphasizes the need for courts to understand and embrace scientific advancements in forensic science to ensure the pursuit of truth and justice in criminal cases.