Summary: The petitioner, Muhammad Tariq Sahi, challenges the Government of Punjab's decision to increase the reserve price of Block No.116-A South District Sargodha for mining by 500%. The petitioner alleges that this increase is without lawful authority and is motivated by mala fide intentions to prevent their participation in the bidding process.According to the respondents, the reserve price was determined by the Special Experts Committee, considering factors such as market trends and the sizes and bids of surrounding blocks. They argue that the petitioner has fully enjoyed the leased area and is now attempting to sabotage the legitimate auction process with a malicious petition.The Assistant Advocate General contends that the petitioner, in collaboration with existing lease holders, aims to maintain a regional monopoly over the sandstone business. The fixation of the reserve price is justified, and the petitioner's actions go against the fundamental right of other citizens to participate in the auction, as per Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan.The petitioner's counsel argues that despite multiple attempts, the auction could not be successful due to the exorbitant reserve price. They claim that if an auction fails several times, the matter should be sent back to the Special Experts Committee for a review of the reserve price.The court, in its decision, emphasizes that the fixation of the reserve price is within the prerogative of the government, and judicial scrutiny is limited. The court states that the petitioner has not established that the reserve price is so unreasonable that no prudent authority could have fixed it. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, leaving the option to refer the matter back to the Committee of Special Experts for a review if future auctions fail to meet the reserve price. ''Fixation of reserve price is prerogative of the concerned governmentdepartment and in this regard, neither any existing lessee nor anyprospective bidder can seek fixation of the reserve price of his own choice.There is no cavil to the proposition that while fixing reserve price, theexercise of discretion by the public authority must be just, fair andreasonable and any arbitrary, whimsical and capricious exercise of suchauthority is amenable to judicial scrutiny, however, the scope of jurisdictionunder Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973in that regard is very limited. For such a challenge to succeed in writjurisdiction, it is imperative for the petitioner to establish that the reserveprice fixed by the public functionaries is so unreasonable that no authority 4Writ Petition No.55800 of 2023with prudent mind could have fixed the same. This is also known as thewednesbury principle. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the casesof Messrs 3N-Lifemed Pharmaceuticals Vs. Government of Punjab throughSecretary Primary and Secondary Healthcare Department and others(2023 CLC 948) and Hajj Organizers Association of Pakistan throughAuthorised Officer and 11 others Vs. Federation of Pakistan throughSecretary Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony, Islamabadand 2 others (PLD 2020 Sindh 42)''

Summary: Noise Pollution ---- Industrial units in residential area:Industrial noise is primarily a byproduct of the machinery, equipment, and processes utilized in these industries. The main characteristics of industrial noise are as follows:i) Sound Intensity: Industrial environments can produce high levels of noise due to the presence of machinery, engines, and heavy equipment. The noise can be loud enough to cause hearing damage if not properly controlled.ii) Frequency: The range of frequencies in industrial noise can vary, but it often includes components of both low and high frequency, depending on the sources.iii) Duration: Industrial noise can be continuous or intermittent, depending on the specific processes and activities underway.iv) Impact: Excessive industrial noise can have negative effects on the health and well- being of workers and nearby residents.v) Prolonged exposure to high levels of industrial noise can lead to hearing loss, stress, sleep disturbances, and other health issues.Keeping in view the above factors, as a short term remedial, the respondent No.7 along with other owners of the industrial units in the area shall be directed by the District Administration /concerned authority to remove/ shift his unit outside the residential area but on long term the Provincial Government is required to notify a particular area for the said purpose but till shifting of the industrial units already installed, the government functionaries shall have a check upon these units to minimize the nuisance hazards by visit of the residential area to have continue check for the use of soundproofing materials such as soundproof blankets and panels, the implementation of technical controls to reduce noise at the source, equipment maintenance to minimize sound emissions, and the construction of noise barriers to protect nearby communities from excessive noise. Installing isolators and vibration dampers can minimize the transmission of solid-borne noise and vibrations through structural elements. Treating industrial noise sources at the source is one of the most effective ways to control noise pollution. Manufacturers are increasingly integrating noise reduction technologies into the design of their equipment and machinery. Optimizing industrial processes can lead to quieter operations and overall improved efficiency. By investing in quieter technologies, regularly upgrading their equipment, and soundproofing their machines with acoustic covers, industries can proactively address noise pollution issues. Respondent No.7 shall apply to the agency for Environmental Assessment Impact Report and respondent No.2 shall also issue notice to the other industrial units/ factories working in the area/spot so that one may not be treated differently when the other units are also functional in the area. Regular inspections, maintenance checks and equipment upgrades are mandatory which shall be done on regularly basis. The potential hazards posed to residents cannot be overlooked. Only through striking a balance between economic growth and residents? welfare can we create thriving, safe and sustainable communities for the future.

Summary: In a democracy General Elections cannot be delayed or derailed after announcement of Election Programme --- The High Court had declared the delimitation order of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) void and directed the ECP to notify the final delimitation for certain constituencies.The Supreme Court, led by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, acknowledged the vital role of elections in a constitutional democracy, emphasizing their importance in upholding democratic principles and public trust. The court considered the significance of timely elections and the potential consequences of delaying or prolonging legal disputes related to elections.The central question before the court was whether to proceed with adjudicating the controversy over constituency delimitation or defer the matter until after the general elections. The Balochistan High Court's order had created a situation where the ECP had not yet notified the final delimitation as directed by the court.The Supreme Court expressed concern about the timing of the High Court's order, considering that the ECP had already announced the Election Programme for the General Elections in 2024. The court highlighted the established principle that general elections are fundamental to representative governance, and their timely conduct takes precedence over issues related to constituency delimitation.In applying the principle of proportionality, the court concluded that the constitutional importance of holding general elections outweighed the need to re-examine constituency delimitation at that juncture. The court expressed the view that intervening in the delimitation matter at that stage would disrupt the electoral timeline and potentially undermine democracy.As a result, the Supreme Court suspended the operation of the Balochistan High Court's order, granting leave to appeal to consider the justification of the High Court's judicial intervention in the ECP's delimitation order. The court directed the ECP to organize and conduct the elections in the two constituencies based on the final delimitation notified on November 30, 2023, and in accordance with the Election Programme announced on December 15, 2023.The court decided to defer the resolution of the delimitation controversy until after the General Elections in 2024, with the case scheduled for hearing at that time.

Summary: Territorial jurisdiction of high court in Article 199 ---- The main petition challenged the Lahore High Court's order, the petitioners contended that the High Court's order, issued close to the scheduled General Elections on 8 February 2024, would disrupt the election process --- The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court's order had suspended notifications issued by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) related to the appointment of officers crucial for conducting elections ---- The order pertained to a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of sections 50(1)(b) and 51(1) of the Elections Act, 2017, related to the appointment of District Returning Officers (DRO), Returning Officers (RO), and Assistant Returning Officers (ARO) ---- The Court criticized the High Court's interference in matters falling outside its territorial jurisdiction and emphasized the availability of an alternate remedy under section 55(3) of the Act --- the Court suspended the operation of the impugned order and stayed further proceedings before the High Court. The Election Commission was allowed to proceed with the Election Programme, which had been delayed due to the High Court's order. --- The High Court's order suspended four ECP notifications related to the appointment of officers for election duties, which the ECP and the Federation argued would impede the holding of general elections scheduled for 8 February 2024.Ruling:CMA No. 10613 of 2023: Granted. The application for exemption of certified copy of the impugned order is allowed.Civil Petition No. 4365 of 2023: Leave to appeal is granted. The Supreme Court observed the necessity to consider the impugned order's conflict with constitutional duties and a previous judgment ensuring the holding of elections.CMA No. 10612 of 2023: The operation of the Lahore High Court's order is suspended, and the ECP is directed to issue the Election Programme, allowing the electoral process to proceed.Reasoning:The Supreme Court found the Lahore High Court's order to be in direct conflict with the constitutional mandate for holding elections and the Supreme Court's previous judgment affirming this mandate.The Court noted the absence of challenges to the constitutionality of the contested provisions in past elections and the lack of allegations against appointed officers' conduct.The Court also highlighted the practical difficulties in appointing judicial officers as election officials, referencing correspondence with High Courts and the resultant inability to spare judicial officers due to caseloads.Order:The Supreme Court suspended the Lahore High Court's order, allowed the Election Commission to proceed with issuing the Election Programme, and stayed further proceedings at the High Court.The Court issued notices to respondent No. 1 and the Federation of Pakistan and sought explanations from respondent No. 1 regarding potential contempt of court for obstructing the electoral process.

Summary: Petitions challenging the constitutionality of certain amendments to the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Rules were filed before the Supreme Court. The petitioners contended that the amendments violated fundamental rights and questioned the court's jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. However, the court, in response, pointed out that the petitioners had failed to specify questions of public importance related to fundamental rights and that the conditions for invoking the court's extraordinary jurisdiction were not satisfied.The court noted that the amendments, which became effective as law on April 21, 2023, introduced provisions for the formation of a committee to decide on benches for hearing cases and outlined procedures for cases falling under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.Despite finding no apparent unconstitutionality in the amendments upon initial examination, the court observed that a stay had been granted during the bill stage, and the matter had been extensively argued. The petitioners argued that the independence of the judiciary was at risk. The court delved into the constitutional framework, emphasizing that the Chief Justice does not possess unilateral decision-making power and that the concept of the "Master of the Roster" is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.The court dismissed the notion of conventions having the force of law and highlighted that, unlike in the UK, conventions in Pakistan are not judicially enforceable. The judgment emphasized the importance of respecting the separation of powers and maintaining a balance between different institutions. The court further argued that the amendments, far from compromising the judiciary's independence, actually strengthened it by ensuring access to justice, transparency, and effective enforcement of fundamental rights.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the amendments to the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Rules, finding them in compliance with the Constitution and beneficial for the judiciary and the public. The petitions were dismissed, and the court affirmed the validity of the amendments.

Summary: Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar's note regarding Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Rule: the Supreme Court of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan had considered the constitutionality of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 ("the Act"). The majority, by a vote of 10 to 5, had upheld the Act as consistent with the Constitution, resulting in the dismissal of related petitions. However, a subsequent division within the majority emerged, leading to a split decision on the issue of conferring a retrospective right of appeal. The majority vote of 8 to 7 had deemed the retrospective right of appeal under Section 5(2) of the Act as ultra vires the Constitution, while a separate majority of 9 to 6 had held the prospective right of appeal to be intra vires.Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, while generally aligning with the majority on the legitimacy of the Act, presented a nuanced perspective by declaring the retrospective right of appeal under Section 5(2) of the Act as ultra vires the Constitution concerning its retrospective application. Justice Mazhar had provided a detailed analysis in support of this position, covering various aspects such as legislative competence, the doctrine of intra vires and ultra vires, retroactive or ex post facto right of appeal, the distinction between Articles 184 and 199 of the Constitution, the doctrine of reading down, change of counsel in review petitions, master of the roster, the effect of the Act on decided cases, and the concept of a full-court hearing.The justice delved into constitutional provisions, emphasizing the importance of reading the Constitution as a whole and interpreting it liberally. The analysis had included references to specific articles, such as Article 141, Article 142, Article 175, and Article 191, highlighting the jurisdiction and powers of the Parliament and the judiciary. The interpretation had also taken into account entries in the Federal Legislative List, particularly Entry No.55 and Entry No.58, which played a crucial role in understanding the legislative competence of the Parliament.Justice Mazhar drew upon legal principles, case law, and comparative analysis with the Constitution of India to substantiate the argument that the Parliament was within its constitutional powers to enact the provisions of the Act. The justice had underscored the need for a broad and liberal interpretation of legislative lists, aiming to encompass ancillary or subsidiary matters within the purview of the enumerated entries. The document discusses the provision of a right of appeal to the Supreme Court through ordinary acts of Parliament, citing examples such as the Competition Act, 2010, and the Elections Act, 2017. It explores the interpretation of Article 191 of the Constitution, focusing on the phrase "subject to" and citing legal precedents like Dada Soap Factory Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax.The summary then distinguishes between procedural and substantive law, referencing Jeremy Bentham and Thomas Holland. It highlights the interdependence of these laws and their roles in legal proceedings and statutory obligations.The legal doctrines of intra vires and ultra vires are introduced, with the petitioners arguing that the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 is ultra vires the Constitution. Legal principles from cases like Baz Muhammad Kakar v. Federation of Pakistan and Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana are cited, emphasizing the presumption in favor of constitutionality and the reluctance to declare laws unconstitutional. The court addresses concerns that the Parliament's regulation of the Supreme Court's internal processes could lead to further encroachments on judicial independence. It emphasizes the Supreme Court's role in safeguarding the constitution and asserts that any attempts to compromise judicial independence will be addressed by the court.Regarding the retroactive right of appeal provided by Section 5 of the Act, the court expresses reservations. It argues that allowing appeals with retrospective effect could open the floodgates for re-litigating past cases, disrupting the finality of judgments. The court criticizes the lack of clarity in Section 5, deeming it uncertain and unintelligible. It states that such a broad retroactive right of appeal is against public policy and the doctrine of finality of judgments, declaring it ultra vires to that extent.The court distinguishes between Articles 184 and 199 of the Constitution, emphasizing that direct petitions under Article 184(3) should involve questions of public importance related to the enforcement of fundamental rights. The court criticizes the past misuse of Article 184(3) jurisdiction and highlights the importance of the Act's provision for the right of appeal in the larger public interest and compliance with Article 10A of the Constitution, ensuring due process of law.One significant point raised is the need to read down Section 3 of the Act, which mandates that matters invoking the original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution should be first examined by a Committee. If the Committee decides no question of public importance regarding the enforcement of Fundamental Rights is involved, the matter ends without further judicial scrutiny. The author suggests that in such cases, the matter should be brought before the Court for judicial review.The document also delves into the doctrine of purposive interpretation of statutes, emphasizing that the primary aim of the Courts should be to align their interpretation with the legislative purpose and object. It highlights the need for harmonizing the provisions of the new Act with the pre-existing Rules of the Court.Another point of discussion is the change introduced by Section 6 of the Act, allowing the appointment of a counsel of choice for filing a review petition. The document clarifies that this provision doesn't grant a right to a rehearing of the entire case but is limited to addressing errors in the judgment or order.Lastly, the document addresses the role of the Chief Justice as the master of the roster and the shift to a collegium system under the Act. It argues that the Chief Justice's administrative powers have been transferred to the Committee, making it the new master of the roster. The author references precedents and emphasizes the historical administrative assignment of the Chief Justice as the master of the roster.Precedents mentioned include cases like M/s Habib and Company v. Muslim Commercial Bank, Engineers Study Forum v. Federation of Pakistan, and Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India. Firstly, it emphasizes the shift in the role of the master of the roster from the Chief Justice to a collegium system, comprising the Chief Justice and the two next most senior judges. This change was enacted to mitigate the sole discretion of the Chief Justice in issuing the roster of sittings and constituting benches.Secondly, the document addresses the temporal effect of the Act on cases decided between its effective date (21.04.2023) and the date of the short order (11.10.2023). The author contends that all cases decided during this period are protected based on legal precedents (Malik Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan and Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan). The conclusiveness of these cases, decided without the involvement of the Committee under Section 2 of the Act, cannot be questioned.Additionally, the document discusses the hearing of the case by a Full Court. The author highlights that even if the law is declared intra vires, allowing for an Intra Court Appeal, the initial eight-member bench lacked the required number of judges for such an appeal. The Chief Justice, therefore, appropriately constituted a Full Court to address the legislative competence and constitutionality of the Act. The author argues that the collective wisdom of all judges, obtained through a Full Court, was crucial in determining the future of the Act. The constitution of a Full Court was deemed more prudent than adopting a phased approach with limited judges on the original side and a larger bench on the appellate side.

Summary: On 13th of December 2023, the Supreme Court of Pakistan temporarily suspended the order that declared civilian trials in military courts under certain clauses of the Army Act as being ultra vires the constitution, subject to the condition that no final judgment would be passed against the 103 accused by the military courts until the next date of hearing --- the impugned order pertains to the decision of the bench on 23.10.2023 that declared clause (d) of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Army Act (in both of its subclauses (i) & (ii)), and subsection (4) of Section 59 of the said Act as being ultravires the Constitution. Next date of hearing set to be third week of January 2024 --- applications related to live streaming and reconstitution of benches to be decided on the next date of hearing.

Summary: ''In order to provide for constitution of Board of Revenue, the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1957") was promulgated. The Board of Revenue was constituted in terms of section 3 of the "Act, 1957", which was given the general superintendence and control over all Revenue Officers and Revenue Courts. Section 5 of the "Act, 1957" vests certain powers upon the Board. Section 8 of the "Act, 1957" bestows power of review upon the Board. Article 199 of the "Constitution" though bestows power upon this Court to issue different kinds of writs mentioned therein but powers so ordained are not unbridled as is evident from the bare perusal of Article 199 of the "Constitution". There is no cavil to the proposition that despite availability of alternate remedy, this Court is not precluded to exercise its jurisdiction as a rule of thumb and even in case of availability of alternate remedy, if the circumstances so demand that the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction is inevitable, a High Court can invoke the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the "Constitution" but at the same time, such exercise cannot be made in an omnibus fashion. It is an oft repeated principle of law that where any party opts to choose a statutory remedy against an order, it cannot abandon or bypass it without any valid or reasonable cause and file constitution petition challenging such order. Such a trend is even offensive of doctrine of election. Guidance in this respect can be sought from COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES-II and another v. HAMDARD DAWAKHANA (WAQF), KARACHI (PLD 1992 Supreme Court 847) --- The revision petition sought to challenge an earlier decision related to the partition of joint land in a village in Chakwal under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967.The court observed that a question was raised regarding the maintainability of the petition, suggesting that the remedy of review under Section 8 of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957, might be more appropriate. The petitioner argued that the remedy of review was not efficacious, and the constitutional petition was maintainable. On the other hand, the respondents contested the maintainability of the petition.The judgment delves into the background of the case, outlining the various stages of the proceedings related to the partition application and subsequent appeals. It also highlights the relevant sections of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957, empowering the Board with control over revenue matters.The court then discusses Article 199 of the Constitution, emphasizing that the High Court may exercise its jurisdiction if no other adequate remedy is provided by law. However, the judgment emphasizes that the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction should not be made in an omnibus fashion and cites precedents cautioning against bypassing statutory remedies without valid reasons.In conclusion, the court finds that the petition is not maintainable, dismissing it without costs. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory remedies and discourages the trend of bypassing them without compelling and justifiable reasons.

Summary: ''An amount deposited in State Treasury on a court's direction, if embezzled, shall be paid by Provincial Government, on a direct direction by the same court.'' --- During the hearing, the petitioner argued that the amount was rightfully deposited in the treasury but fraudulently withdrawn by the ex-Civil Nazar. The Additional Advocate General, Punjab, proposed referring the matter to the Administrative Committee, citing a similar case directed by the Human Rights Commission of the Supreme Court.To verify the facts, a report from the Directorate of District Judiciary was obtained. The DG confirmed the petitioner's entitlement but opposed referring the case to the Administrative Committee, citing the precedent set in the Gul Taiz Khan Marwat case (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 391). The DG emphasized that the responsibility to return the amount lies with the Provincial Government.After hearing both parties, the court observed that a definite procedure is needed for such claims to avoid delays. It held that if the embezzled amount was deposited in the treasury on the court's direction, the same court should determine whether the amount was embezzled and, if so, direct the Provincial Government for payment to the entitled person. In this case, the court found in favor of the petitioner, directing the Civil Court to modify the order and instruct the Provincial Government to pay Rs. 10,50,000/- to the petitioner. The petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: BackgroundThe Supreme Court of Pakistan is handling Reference No. 1 of 2011, a Presidential Reference filed under Article 186 of the Constitution regarding the late Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's criminal trial and conviction. The Reference aims to revisit and scrutinize the circumstances and legal proceedings of the cases against Mr. Bhutto, particularly those reported as Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and 3 others v. The State (PLD 1979 Supreme Court 38) and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State (PLD 1979 Supreme Court 53). The inquiry has been ongoing, with various legal aspects and constitutional questions being raised regarding the legitimacy and fairness of the original trials.---IssuesThe Supreme Court is set to address multiple key constitutional and legal issues, including:The maintainability of the Presidential Reference under Article 186 of the Constitution.The need for factual inquiry under the same article and whether an opinion can be given based on such an inquiry.The credibility and legitimacy of the trial and appeal processes, especially considering the political context of Mr. Bhutto?s removal from power and subsequent prosecution.The possibility of judicial manipulation or bias during the trial or appeal to achieve a specific outcome.---Holding/Reasoning/OutcomeAs the case is still ongoing, the Supreme Court has yet to provide a final judgment. However, it has taken significant steps to ensure a thorough examination of all aspects related to the case. This includes the appointment of several amici curiae to provide expert opinions on both constitutional matters and specific criminal law issues, such as the conduct of murder trials by the High Court, the admissibility of confessional statements, and the potential impacts of legal bias.---Citations/PrecedentsArticle 186 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan: This article allows the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on important legal questions.Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and 3 others v. The State (PLD 1979 Supreme Court 38)Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State (PLD 1979 Supreme Court 53)