Summary: Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. Rejection of the plaint at the initial stage, is based on the concept nipping the evil in the bud before it surfaces.

Summary: ''Sections 68 and 69 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 constitute a two-pronged test, both limbs of which must be satisfied by any election petitioner challenging the election of the returned candidate, if he wishes to be declared duly elected in place of such returned candidate. The rules of proof for the grounds challenging the election which are founded on corrupt and illegal practices are quite strict and stringent and the allegations in this regard must be absolutely proved through positive evidence without accepting any inferences and if there is any doubt, the benefit must go to the person against whom corrupt or illegal practices are being alleged. A bare perusal of the findings of the learned Tribunal vis-?-vis polling station no. 29 clearly suggests that it has concluded that the evidence indicates committal of illegal practices in connivance and collusion with the returned candidate based on pure inference and conjecture, without ruling out all the possibilities in light of the circumstantial evidence and without correctly appreciating the evidence and properly applying the law on the matter.'' ---- Issue: Whether the election of the appellant as the returned candidate was void due to alleged corrupt and illegal practices within the meaning of Sections 68 and 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1976, and if so, whether the election should be declared void under Section 70 of the Act.Holding: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the respondent failed to prove the allegations of illegal practices against the appellant through positive evidence as required by law. Consequently, the appellant's election could not be declared void under Section 68 of the Act, nor could the election be declared void as a whole under Section 70.Reasoning: The Court found that the alleged lapses did not constitute illegal practices under Section 83 of the Act, and even if the votes from the contentious polling station No. 29 were excluded, the appellant would still have won by a substantial margin, thus the election result was not materially affected. The Court criticized the Tribunal for relying on inferences and conjecture rather than positive evidence, and for failing to consider alternative explanations for the discrepancies noted at polling station No. 29.Rule: For an election to be declared void due to illegal practices, there must be positive evidence proving such practices, as per Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1976. The election can only be declared void as a whole under Section 70 if the result has been materially affected by the non-compliance with the Act or the rules.Important Citations:Sardar Abdul Hafeez Khan v. Sardar Muhammad Tahir Khan Loni and 13 others, 1999 SCMR 284Syed Saeed Hassan v. Pyar Ali and 7 others, PLD 1976 SC 6Dr. Sheela B. Charles v. Qaisar Ifraeem Soraya and another, 1996 SCMR 1455

Summary: PLJ 2015 SC (AJK) 64 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present Muhammad Azam Khan CJ and Ch Muhammad Ibrahim Zia J REHMATULLAH KHAN 3 others - - Appellants versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF JAMMU KASHMIR through Chief Secretary Muzaffarabad and 13 others - - Respondents CA No 242 of 2013 decided on 1382014 (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 1382013 in Writ Petition No 111 of 2010) AJK Interim Constitution Act 1974 (VIII of 1974) - - - - - - S 52 - A (2) - - Land was acquired for public purpose - - Acquired land was leased out - - Notification regarding transfer of acquired land was objected - - Committee was constituted in cabinet - - Recommended for cancellation of leases - - Notifications for grant of land on lease was challenged - - Directed to place before cabinet - - Assailed - - Process regarding lease of acquired land was violative to Constitution - - Acquired land for public purpose cannot be transferred without following prescribed legal manner and mode - - Process adopted was illegal - - Validity - - Such matter has got public importance and ultimately a cabinet committee was constituted which after detailed deliberation and due course of law recommended for cancellation of impugned lease granting notifications - - Land is not available for granting on lease or utilizing same for individual or private purpose in preference over public purpose - - Such acquired property vests in President of AJK and same can only be transferred by Government according to law - - Such Government property can only be transferred by Government in manner regulated by law - - In absence of any such law for transfer of Government property exercise of powers by Government in an arbitrary manner will amount to offend constitutional provisions hence such orders cannot sustain - - Notifications for grant of lease in favour of private respondents are bad in law hence cannot sustain [Pp 70 76 77 79 88] A B C D F G L AJK Interim Constitution Act 1974 (VIII of 1974) - - - - - - S 52 - A (5) - - Notification - - Grant of lease - - Process adopted for acquired land was illegal - - Challenge to - - Transfer of Government land must be regulated by law as basic essence and spirit of constitution in perspective of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights especially equality before law is to provide mode for equal treatment of law - - Government can grant lease of Government land but for grant of lease of such land there must be clear prescribed manner known to state subjects so that lease should be granted on basis of competition for avoiding arbitrary exercise of powers by Government [P 78] E AJK Interim Constitution Act 1974 - - - - - - S 52 - A (2) - - Land was acquired for public purpose - - Acquired land was transferred for private sector - - Process adopted for acquired land was illegal - - Challenge to - - Question of - - Whether Government was empowered to transfer or exchange shamlat or khalsa land with any private land - - Determination - - Neither any such provision exist in statutes dealing with Khalsa land or Shamlat land nor any other provision of any enforced law empowers Government to execute such like transaction of exchange in interest of private person - - It is now settled principle of law that any act without lawful authority does not create any interest or legal rights in favour of beneficiaries - - Land is badly required for public purpose and matter is awaiting finalization since last more than 5 years period - - Prime legal object of institutions of state is to protect interest of public - at - large while performing their functions Supreme Court was unable to agree with opinion of High Court to send matter back to Cabinet for decision especially when Cabinet Committee has already recommended for cancellation of illegal impugned notifications - - Constitutional provisions as well as principle of law enunciated are fully applicable and same is not mere subject of law regarding grant of Khalsa land Law - - According to scheme of law it falls within domain of Government to determine question of public purpose and interest - - Grant of Government land on lease to private institutions clearly indicates that authorities either have no awareness regarding requirement of land for public purpose or they have ignored public purpose and requirements of public institutions - - Authorities and institutions must prefer purpose of public interest while making such like decisions and exercising such powers [Pp 81 82 88 89] H I J K M N O Performance of Judiciary - - - - - - Affected due to lack of proper and suitable Court buildings and residential facilities - - No building for Distt Court - - Functioning - - Validity - - Equal treatment among state organs and institutions especially better facilitation is necessary to improve standard of administration of justice in State - - According to constitutional scheme it is duty of Government to provide proper accommodation and facilities to judiciary - - Thus it is duty of State and the Government to take all necessary steps to ensure protection of religious rights of minorities according to injunctions of Islam - - Government is directed to take necessary action in that regard and if it is proved that any piece of land was reserved and utilized for Gordwara a religious sacred place of Sikhs necessary measures would be taken for restoration of same to its original condition as for as possible and also for its protection - - Question of enforcement of fundamental rights of state subjects supremacy of law every state subject in such like matters is aggrieved person - - All appellantspetitioners being state subjects keeping in view legal and factual proposition of instant case and prayed relief are aggrieved persons therefore writ petition filed on their behalf was competent [Pp 89 90 91 96] P Q R S T Sardar Karam Dad Khan Advocate for Appellants Ch Shoukat Aziz AddlAG for Respondent No 1 Mr Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Mughal Advocate for Respondent No 7 Kh Muhammad Nasim Advocate for Respondent No 10 Mr Muhammad Idress Mughal Advocate for Respondent No 11 Meer Abdul Latif Advocate for Respondent No 12Judgement Result:Appeal accepted

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Criminal Appeal U/S. 410, Cr.P.C, appreciation of evidence. Offence under Section 302,324/34PPC. Both parties co-villagers and relatives inter se. So the question of misidentification is ruled out. Occurrence had not taken place suddenly, first altercation took place and on hearing the same both accused and eye witness PW8 came out of their houses. So, presence of witness at spot is quite natural hence is proved. Appeal dismissed. Murder Reference answered in affirmative.

Summary: Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.Constitutionality and legality of R. 42(10-A) of KP Local Council( Conduct of Election) Rules, 2014 held intra-vires. Submission of parties list for nomination of candidates.