Summary: BackgroundThe case involves a Presidential Reference under Article 186 of the Constitution of Pakistan concerning the late Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's criminal trial and conviction. The reference, initiated by the President of Pakistan, questioned the legitimacy and proceedings of Mr. Bhutto's trial and sought a reevaluation from the Supreme Court. Despite starting hearings in 2011, the case remained pending while other references were addressed, prompting the need for its urgent resolution.---IssuesThe key issues addressed by the court included:The maintainability of the Presidential Reference under Article 186 of the Constitution.The necessity of factual inquiry within the scope of Article 186.The legitimacy and credibility of the trial and subsequent appeal, particularly given the political context of Mr. Bhutto's removal from power and subsequent prosecution.Allegations of judicial manipulation to influence the outcome of the trial and appeal.---Holding/Reasoning/OutcomeThe court allowed the participation of Mr. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Mr. Bhutto's grandson, in the proceedings. It addressed multiple constitutional and legal questions regarding the trial's conduct and its judicial review. The Supreme Court appointed numerous amici curiae to provide expert insights into various constitutional, legal, and procedural aspects of the case. The court directed that all relevant materials, including past orders and tribunal reports, be reviewed by the appointed amici curiae who would then submit their findings. The matter was set to be revisited in a subsequent hearing.---Citations/PrecedentsArticle 186 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Provides the framework for Presidential References.West Pakistan Tribunals of Inquiry Ordinance, 1969: Empowers the government to constitute tribunals for inquiry.Judicial decisions referenced:Lahore High Court judgment concerning the investigation of Mr. Mohammad Ahmed Khan's murder.Supreme Court decisions on subsequent appeals and reviews.C.M.A. No.8622/2018 and C.M.A. No.10492/2023: Applications related to the representation and broadcasting of the proceedings.Order dated 21 April 2011: Previous order by the Supreme Court formulating questions for judicial opinion.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, who are employees of the Education Department of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, challenged the recovery of amounts from their salaries by the respondents. The petitioners' salaries had been fixed by the District Accounts Officer in accordance with a Memorandum issued by the Finance Department on 12.12.2011, which aimed to resolve pay anomalies between senior and junior teachers. The petitioners claimed that the respondents began recovering amounts from their salaries without proper notice or justification. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondents acted lawfully in recovering amounts from the petitioners' salaries. 2- Whether the fixation of salaries was properly conducted in accordance with the relevant Office Memorandum. 3- Whether the principles of natural justice were adhered to in the process of salary recovery. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Unlawful Recovery: The court found that the respondents acted unlawfully in recovering amounts from the petitioners' salaries. The fixation of salaries was conducted according to the Office Memorandum dated 12.12.2011, which had been sanctioned by the Finance Department. The respondents' recovery of these amounts without issuing proper notices to the petitioners was deemed unjustified. Proper Fixation of Salaries: The court noted that the salaries were fixed after due process and with the approval of the Finance Department. The respondents failed to provide satisfactory evidence that the fixation of salaries was incorrect or that the Finance Division of Pakistan's guidelines applied to the case. Principles of Natural Justice: The court held that the respondents violated the principles of natural justice by not issuing show-cause notices or providing an opportunity for the petitioners to be heard before initiating the recovery process. This failure to adhere to the Audi Alteram Partum principle rendered the respondents' actions unlawful. The court quashed the impugned FDR No. (13352)/2012 dated 11.05.2012 and directed the respondents to refund the amounts already recovered from the petitioners. The respondents were also restrained from making any further recoveries in this regard. The court emphasized the importance of following due process and respecting the rights of individuals in administrative actions. ----Citations/Precedents: Controlling Authority Vs. Abdul Salam PLD 1993 SC 200 Province of Punjab Vs. Pervez Iqbal 2004 SCMR 309 Govt. of Sindh Vs. Sher Mohammad PLD 1991 SC 973 Govt. of Sindh Vs. Sher Mohammad PLD 1992 SC 207 + 1989 PLC (CS) 332 Mohammad Saeed Vs. Secretary Finance 2019 PLC (CS) 893 The writ petitions were accepted, and the respondents were directed to stop the unlawful recovery and refund the recovered amounts to the petitioners. The court emphasized that any future recovery actions must adhere to due process and the principles of natural justice.

Summary: ''It is an oft-repeated principle of law that whenever some miscellaneous application is pending before the Court, it shall decide the same in the first stance before finalizing the lis and passing the final order/judgment. Failure to decide the miscellaneous application before passing the final verdict would render the same nullity in the eye of law. To this effect, guidance from the case of MUHAMMAD UMER vs. MUHAMMAD QASIM and another (1991 SCMR 1232).'' --- This case, Stereo.HCJDA 38, involves a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the validity of an order dated December 9, 2022. The order, issued by the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, affirmed a previous order from May 19, 2022, by the Civil Judge Class-I, Rawalpindi.The background of the case is a suit for declaration filed by respondents, claiming to be legal heirs of Arif Hussain, who passed away on November 9, 2018. The suit resulted in an ex-parte decree on March 19, 2019. The petitioners, upon learning of this, filed an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking annulment of the judgment and decree. They argued that petitioner No.1's name was included in the suit, but she never participated, and all proceedings were conducted by respondent No.1 without authorization.The trial court dismissed both the application under section 12(2) and another application for summoning a witness. The petitioners then filed a revision petition, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge.The petitioners contended that the ex-parte decree was obtained through misrepresentation, and the trial court failed to address this issue properly. They argued that the revisional court acted like a post office and did not exercise its jurisdiction.The judgment by Mirza Viqas Rauf allows the petition, setting aside the orders of December 9, 2022, and May 19, 2022. The application under section 12(2) of the CPC is deemed pending before the Senior Civil Judge, who is instructed to decide it afresh within three months from the date of the first appearance of the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Senior Civil Judge on January 10, 2024. No costs are awarded. The decision refers to legal principles emphasizing the need to decide miscellaneous applications before passing final judgments.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan – Arts. 130(6), 199 & 240 – Executive Authority, Cabinet Responsibility, and Judicial Restraint in Policy Matters - Judicial interference with executive discretion—Scope—Held, High Court acted without jurisdiction in directing the provincial government to regularize 236 contractual employees and create provisioning from the supplementary grant—Court failed to appreciate that such regularization required prior approval of both the provincial cabinet and the finance department—Under Art.130(6), budgetary and policy decisions are the collective responsibility of the cabinet and cannot be exercised unilaterally or on the basis of recommendations by sub-committees—Regularization constitutes a policy matter lying exclusively within executive domain; judicial orders usurping this role violate the trichotomy of powers. (b) Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011 – Rr. 15, 19 & 25 – Cabinet Approval and Financial Sanction as Prerequisites for Regularization - Lack of cabinet and finance department approval—Effect—Held, recommendations of the cabinet sub-committee regarding regularization were provisional and lacked legal effect absent formal ratification by the cabinet—Finance department’s non-concurrence further rendered the proposed creation of posts and budget allocation void—Rules 15 and 19 mandate consultation with finance department for any change affecting provincial finances—Rule 25 requires full cabinet ratification of sub-committee decisions—Non-compliance with these rules invalidates any purported approval for regularization. (c) Employment Law – Regularization of Contractual Employees – No Vested Right Without Statutory Framework - Regularization as a matter of right—Scope—Held, no vested right to regularization arises in absence of statutory support—Employees hired on contract basis cannot claim regularization merely on the basis of long service or administrative recommendations—Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 and its amendment of 2019 found inapplicable—Posts in question not sanctioned and had no service rules governing them—Judicial precedents including Tanveer Ahmad, Jabran Ali Khan and Muhammad Shafiq reaffirmed that regularization requires sanctioned posts, fulfillment of codal formalities, and approval of competent authority—Courts cannot compel creation of posts or allocation of funds absent legal foundation. (d) Suo Motu Case re Zakat Department Employees – Scope and Relevance - Zakat paid staff—Regularization of services—Held, this Court in earlier suo motu proceedings observed that the peculiar nature of service in the Zakat and Ushr Department does not merit blanket regularization—Left the matter to the discretion of provincial governments—High Court failed to consider that the employees in question worked part-time and were not on sanctioned posts—No legal or constitutional right to regularization established on facts. (e) Judicial Review – Limits of Constitutional Jurisdiction under Art. 199 - Court directing executive to create posts and finance them—Legality—Held, High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively acting as appointing authority—Such directions amount to encroachment upon policy-making function reserved for the executive—Judicial power does not extend to mandating fiscal decisions or institutional restructuring—Courts may only review executive action for legality, arbitrariness, or violation of fundamental rights—not substitute administrative judgment with judicial command. Disposition: Civil Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Impugned order of Lahore High Court set aside for being beyond jurisdiction and contrary to settled principles regarding regularization.

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged the decision/order dated 18.06.2013 in a writ petition, arguing it was coram-non-judice and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner presented a document showing that on 19.02.2018, the author of the impugned judgment was no longer the Commissioner Rehabilitation, and the post had been taken over by Mr. Ataullah Atta. Despite this, the decision was rendered on 15.03.2018. ----Issues: 1- Whether the decision dated 11.02.2017 was coram-non-judice and without jurisdiction. 2- Whether the decision made by an officer no longer holding the office of Commissioner Rehabilitation is valid. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the decision dated 11.02.2017 was coram-non-judice and without jurisdiction. The principle of law states that an action required to be performed in a specific manner must be done so, or it is a nullity in the eyes of the law. The decision on 15.03.2018 by Tehzeeb Nisa, posing as Commissioner Rehabilitation, was invalid as she had been transferred from the office on 16.02.2018. The decision was deemed void because the author lacked the authority and jurisdiction at the time of the decision. The court quashed the impugned decision dated 15.03.2018, declaring it was made without jurisdiction. The case was remanded to the Commissioner Rehabilitation for a judicious decision in accordance with the law, allowing both parties an opportunity to be heard. ----Citations/Precedents: Decision dated 11.02.2017 declared coram-non-judice. Black's Law Dictionary definition of jurisdiction: "It is the authority by which Courts and Judicial Officers take cognizance of and decide cases." The petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs, and the file was archived.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a manager of the Auqaf Department at Darbar Baba Shadi Shaheed in Bhimber, filed a writ petition challenging several orders and audit findings. The dispute arose from the awarding and subsequent cancellation of a contract for the sale of goats, their skins, and other items related to the Darbar. The contract, initially awarded to a respondent, was canceled by a government notification, leading to audit findings that pointed to financial losses. ----Issues: 1- Whether the cancellation of the contract was justified and in accordance with the law. 2- Whether the petitioner was responsible for the alleged financial loss to the government exchequer. 3- Whether the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to be heard before the adverse actions were taken. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome --Justification of Contract Cancellation: The court found that the cancellation of the contract by the Revenue Minister was arbitrary and not in accordance with the law. The Revenue Minister did not have the authority to interfere in such matters, and the contract was canceled without proper justification, causing financial loss. --Responsibility for Financial Loss: The petitioner was not solely responsible for the financial loss as the cancellation was initiated by the Revenue Minister and sanctioned by higher authorities. The petitioner was executing orders from his superiors and had no role in the decision to cancel the contract. --Opportunity to be Heard: The petitioner was not provided with a proper opportunity to be heard before the adverse decisions were made. This violated the principles of natural justice as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, which mandates that no one should be condemned unheard. The court held that the petitioner should not be penalized for actions beyond his control and annulled the impugned orders and audit findings against him. The writ petition was accepted as prayed for, with no order as to costs. ----Citations/Precedents: Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Fatima Sharif Textile Kasoor and others [2009 PTD 37] Emphasized the necessity of providing notice to concerned parties before proceeding against them, upholding principles of natural justice. Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 Mandates that any authority exercising power under an enactment must do so reasonably, fairly, justly, and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment, providing reasons for their actions.

Summary: The petitioner has filed an instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, seeking the removal of her name from the Passport Control List (PCL) / Exit Control List (ECL). The petitioner learned about her inclusion in the PCL through media reports and contends that the action is discriminatory, violating her constitutional rights. The respondents argue that the petitioner is involved in criminal cases, and placing her name on the PCL is necessary to ensure her presence for investigation and trial. The court refers to a similar case involving Faisal Maqbool Shaikh, where the court ordered the removal of his name from the PCL. The Islamabad Police's report mentions the petitioner's involvement in criminal cases, but the petitioner argues that she has obtained bail and is facing trial in accordance with the law. The petitioner challenges the lack of show cause notice and argues that the placement on the PCL violates her fundamental rights. The court examines the relevant Passport Rules, highlighting that the criteria for placement on the PCL include involvement in anti-state activities, which the petitioner denies. The court emphasizes that the Federal Government's approval is required for placing names on the PCL, and no such approval has been provided in this case. The petitioner asserts that the placement on the PCL infringes on her fundamental rights to due process, liberty, life, and freedom of movement. The court references various legal precedents emphasizing the importance of fair and reasonable exercise of discretionary powers, especially regarding the right to travel. The petitioner contends that she has not been involved in anti-state activities, and the lack of approval from the Federal Government makes her inclusion on the PCL unlawful. The court concludes that the petitioner's fundamental rights have been violated, and her name should be removed from the PCL. --- In the case of Gen. (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf through Attorney v. Pakistan through Secretary Interior and others (PLD 2014 Sindh 389), the court clarified that the mere registration of a criminal case does not automatically warrant the inclusion of the accused on the Exit Control List (E.C.L). The court emphasized that bail, once granted, falls within the jurisdiction of the court to regulate the custody of the accused. Additionally, it was pointed out that the law provides procedures to address situations where an accused is absconding. ---- In the case of Riaz Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan & others (PLD 2014 Islamabad 29), the court underscored the fundamental right to movement/travel guaranteed under the Constitution and international agreements. The authorities were reminded of their obligation to resolve public issues fairly and promptly, highlighting that depriving a citizen of fundamental rights without due process, especially when no trial has taken place, is a violation of those rights. --- In Mian Ayaz Anwar v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior & 3 others (PLD 2010 Lahore 230), the court emphasized that the right to travel is an integral part of human liberty and a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution. The judgment recognized the significance of international travel in modern life and considered it a right to life as well as a right to liberty. The court stressed that any restriction on these fundamental rights must be in accordance with law, satisfying both substantive and procedural due process. ---- The case of Wajid Shams-ul-Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior (PLD 1997 Lahore 617) affirmed that the right of a citizen to travel abroad is a fundamental right protected by various articles of the Constitution. The court asserted that the registration of a criminal case alone cannot justify curtailing a citizen's fundamental rights. --- In conclusion, the court, relying on established legal principles and precedents, declared the placement of the petitioner's name on the Exit Control List unjustified, illegal, and without lawful authority. The court directed the removal of the petitioner's name from the list within a specified time frame.

Summary: ''Differentiation in granting allowances to specified employees while denying them to others within the Civil Secretariat premises was not reasonable and went against the principle of equity before the law, as enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution.''---- The Respondents, who were serving in the Solicitor Office, Law Department, Peshawar, had been receiving special allowance at a rate of 20% and utility allowance at a rate of 10% of their basic pay starting from February 2008. However, these allowances were discontinued from July 2008 on the grounds that the employees of the Solicitor Office were not considered part of the Civil Secretariat, and therefore, were not entitled to such allowances. The government initiated recovery of the allowances already paid to the Respondents, which led the Respondents to file a Writ Petition before the High Court.Upon hearing the case and reviewing the relevant records, the Supreme Court observed that in 1995, the Solicitor Office was made part of the Law Department of NWFP Civil Secretariat through a Notification dated 26.07.1995. In February 2008, the Finance Department, Government of NWFP, issued letters granting special and utility allowances to various government offices. These allowances were initially extended to the officers and officials of the Civil Secretariat, Chief Minister?s Secretariat, and Governor?s House/Secretariat, and later, the applicability was extended to other specified employees, including those on deputation and not part of the Secretariat Service.The Respondents had also received these allowances but were subsequently denied them on the grounds that the employees of the Solicitor Office were not considered part of the Civil Secretariat. The High Court, in its judgment, ruled that this differentiation in granting allowances to specified employees while denying them to others within the Civil Secretariat premises was not reasonable and went against the principle of equity before the law, as enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution.Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court, finding no legal flaws or perversity in its decision. As a result, the appeal was dismissed on 29.11.2023.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, whose father died while serving as a teacher, applied for the position of Primary Teacher (Female) in Mirpur. Despite qualifying for 10 additional marks under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Teacher Recruitment Policy, 2017, due to her father's death during service, these marks were not awarded to her. Consequently, she was placed at number 40 on the merit list, instead of within the top 10. The petitioner contended that respondents 12 to 23, who were initially on the waiting list, were appointed and later confirmed, bypassing her rightful claim. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner should have received the 10 additional marks under Section 10(iii) of the AJK Teacher Recruitment Policy, 2017. 2- Whether the petitioner was rightfully entitled to a higher position on the merit list and subsequent appointment. 3- Whether the failure to provide the 10 additional marks violated the petitioner's rights under the policy. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Entitlement to Additional Marks: The court held that the petitioner was indeed entitled to 10 additional marks under Section 10(iii) of the AJK Teacher Recruitment Policy, 2017, as her father had died while in service. The policy clearly stipulates that such marks should be awarded to the children or spouse of deceased civil servants who meet the prescribed qualifications and pass the test. --Higher Merit Position and Appointment: With the additional 10 marks, the petitioner's total score would be 65.35, placing her within the top 10 on the merit list. The court found that her non-inclusion in the higher ranks of the merit list and the subsequent appointments of respondents 12 to 23 were unjustified and in violation of the recruitment policy. --Violation of Petitioner's Rights: The court determined that the petitioner had been wronged by not receiving the additional marks. Despite the petitioner's claim that she submitted the necessary application and affidavit in a timely manner, the official respondents failed to award the marks, leading to a breach of her rights under the policy. The court directed the respondents to redress the petitioner's grievance within two months, ensuring that she receives the additional 10 marks and her rightful position on the merit list, with a compliance report to be submitted to the Deputy Registrar of the court. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 10(iii) of the AJ&K Teacher Recruitment Policy, 2017: Entitles the children or spouse of deceased civil servants to 10 additional marks in aggregate merit if they possess the prescribed qualifications and pass the test. Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Fatima Sharif Textile Kasoor and others [2009 PTD 37]: Upholds the principle that no one should be condemned unheard, emphasizing the necessity of providing notice and a fair opportunity to the concerned party. The court's decision ensures that the petitioner's rights under the recruitment policy are upheld and that justice is served by rectifying the merit list and her position therein.

Summary: Background: The petitioner sought judicial intervention to restrain the respondents from canceling, suspending, or revoking NOCs, water rights, land lease notifications, and other crucial consents related to their Jari/Khari hydropower project. The petitioner, a private hydro power company, claimed that the government was attempting to convert the project into a public sector project, despite the petitioner's significant investment and development efforts since 1992. ----Issues: 1- Whether the cancellation of the NOC and other consents by the respondents was lawful. 2- Whether the petitioner's rights under the Water Use Agreement and other relevant laws were violated. 3- Whether the respondents acted with malafide intentions and without proper legal authority. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Cancellation of NOC and Consents: The court held that the cancellation of the NOC and other consents was not in accordance with the law. The impugned notification dated 23.04.2013 was issued without prior notice to the petitioner, lacked reasoning, and violated the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that any action affecting the rights of the petitioner must be reasoned and transparent, as required by Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. --Violation of Rights under Water Use Agreement: The court found that the respondents violated the petitioner's rights under the Water Use Agreement, which specifically prohibited the cancellation or revocation of consents granted to the petitioner. The agreement, executed between the petitioner and the government, was legally binding and protected under Article 52(A) of the AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974. --Malafide Intentions and Lack of Legal Authority: The court determined that the respondents acted with malafide intentions, attempting to convert a privately developed project into a public sector project without legal authority. The respondents' actions were deemed arbitrary, lacking transparency, and in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights. The court concluded that the petitioner's development efforts and investments since 1992 established a prima facie case for their continued development of the project. The court set aside the impugned notification dated 23.04.2013 and directed the respondents to refrain from any actions that would cancel, suspend, or revoke the NOCs, water rights, land lease notifications, and other consents granted to the petitioner. ----Citations/Precedents Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Fatima Sharif Textile Kasoor and others [2009 PTD 37]: Emphasized the necessity of providing notice to concerned parties and upholding principles of natural justice. Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897: Mandates that any authority exercising power under an enactment must do so reasonably, fairly, justly, and provide reasons for their actions. 1999 SCR 167-172 2014 SCR 848 1996 SCMR 413 PLD 2007 Lah 61 2012 SCMR 773 The court's decision upheld the petitioner's rights under the Water Use Agreement and ensured that any actions affecting these rights must comply with legal and procedural requirements, emphasizing transparency and fairness.