Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------Ss. 25-D, 79, 80 & 193---Valuation ruling---Importer was aggrieved of valuation rulingwhereby price declared by importer was found to be on lower side---Validity---Customs Officerafter examination, assessed duty and taxes leviable on goods imported, which was required to bepaid by the importer---Such sort of assessment was in order of Customs Officer passed under S.80 of Customs Act, 1969 on receipt of goods determined under S. 79 of Customs Act, 1969 bythe importer---Order passed under S. 80 of Customs Act, 1969 was an appealable order whereas,Valuation Ruling was required to be challenged under S.25-D of Customs Act, 1969---Importerhad remedy under Ss. 193 & 25-D of Customs Act, 1969, by approaching concerned forumavailable in the hierarchy under Customs law---Constitutional Petition was dismissed incircumstances.2015 SCMR 630; 2006 PTD 909; Messrs Flying Board and Paper Products (Pvt.) Ltd. v.Deputy Collector of Customs, Dry Port, Lahore 2006 SCMR 1648 = 2006 PTD 2354 and SyedArshad Ali and others v. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. and others 2008 SCMR314 ref.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Provision of Art. 199 of theConstitution was not meant to short-circuit statutory proceedings---High Court could exercisesuch jurisdiction when it was found that order assailed was without jurisdiction or apparentlycontrary to settled provisions of law or was likely to result in miscarriage of justice.

Summary: (a) Balochistan Civil Servants Act (IX of 1974)-------Ss. 15 & 16---Balochistan Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979, Rr.30, 27-B, 31, 2(r)& 3---Civil service---Strike by civil servants---Misconduct---Public functionaries---Fundamentalrights---Scope---Formation of association had not been prohibited however restriction had beenimposed by law in the interest of public order---Every right would correspond to a duty and ifthere was no duty then there was no right---Government/civil servants and employees ofstatutory bodies owed some duties to the State as well as public-at-large---Holdingdemonstration or observance of strike and/or sit-in (dharna) would attract provisions of relevantlaw and any civil servant or employee of statutory body except those who fell within thedefinition of workmen indulged in such activity should be held guilty of "misconduct" andshould be proceeded against departmentally---Fundamental rights in essence were restrained onthe arbitrary exercise of power by the State in relation to any activity that an individual couldengage---Freedom of association was not absolute or unfettered and it would be subject toreasonable restrictions imposed by law and morality and decency---Word "subject to reasonablerestrictions" did not admit and permit total denial of right---Association of employees observedstrike not recognized by any law rather such strikes had been prohibited under the law---Authorities concerned had been remiss in discharging its obligations under the Constitution orthe law---Competent authorities were under constitutional and moral duty to take action againstthose indulged in illegal strikes---Executive was bound to enforce fundamental rights ofindividuals and they could not be allowed to defeat any provision of Constitution---Strikes ineducational institutions and health-care centers and holding demonstrations on publicthoroughfare by sit-in (dharna) was infringement of fundamental rights of every citizen---Civilservants and employees of statutory bodies were at liberty to form association or to be a memberof such association but strictly in accordance with law---Chief Secretary of the Province wasdirected to give serious consideration to the expediency of incorporating necessary amendmentsin the Balochistan Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979---High Court observed that ifgovernment/civil servants and/or employees of statutory bodies in future were found indulged inobservance of strike or holding demonstrations/sit-in (dharna) at or by public thoroughfares thenthey should not only be guilty of "misconduct" but also contempt of court---Secretary ofconcerned department/head of statutory body should initiate departmental disciplinary actionagainst the delinquents involved in such activities---If Secretary of the department concerned/head of statutory body failed to initiate action then Chief Secretary should initiatedisciplinary proceedings against him as well as delinquent government/civil servants/employees---If Chief Secretary also failed to initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings then contemptproceedings would be initiated---Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances.Muhammad Afzal v. Mushtarka Mulazmin Action Committee 1999 PLC (C.S.) 1116;Jamat-i-Islami Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2000 SC 111; Pakistan Muslim League(N) v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2007 SC 642; Dr. Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of PakistanPLD 2010 SC 265; AIR 1950 SC 211; AIR 1964 SC 416; AIR 1960 SC 633; Mehtab Jan v.Municipal Committee Rawalpindi PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lah. 929; People's Union for DemocraticRights v. Union of India 1984 PSC 314; Ghulam Murtaza v. Inayatullah 1998 PLC (C.S.) 274;Khuda Bux Chandio v. Sattar 1999 MLD 3199; Watan Party v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD2011 SC 997; Brookes Pharmaceutical Laboratories (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi v. KarachiBuildings Control Authority 2012 CLC 131; Khwaja Ahmad Hassan v. Government of PunjabPLD 2004 SC 694; Pakistan Medical and Dental Council v. Ziauddin Medical University PLD2007 SC 323 and Zahid Ahmed v. Province of Sindh 2012 PLC (C.S.) 124 rel.(b) Contempt of court-------Proceedings---Scope---Power to initiate proceedings of contempt should be used sparinglyand court should exercise judicial restraint as long as possible---Such power should always beexercised cautiously, wisely and with circumspection.Syed Masroor Ahsan v. Ardeshir Cowasjee PLD 1998 SC 823; Naveed Nawazish Malikv. Ghulam Rasool Bhatti 1997 SCMR 193 and Baz Muhammad Kakar v. Federation of Pakistanthrough Ministry of Law and Justice PLD 2012 SC 923 rel.(c) Constitution of Pakistan------Arts. 4 & 5---Protection of law---Scope---Every citizen had inalienable right to be treated inaccordance with law.(d) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 3---Elimination of exploitation---State was under obligation to establish a society whichwas free from exploitation---Right to education and medical-care was valuable right andinfringement of said right was the worst form of exploitation of ordinary citizens.Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan and others PLD 1993 SC 473rel.(e) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 17---Public order'---Meaning.AIR 1950 SC 129; AIR 1960 SC 633 and AIR 1972 SC 1656 rel.(f) Words and phrases-------`Strike'---Meaning.(g) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---When fundamental rights hadbeen violated, High Court must step in to investigate such facts and pass such order as might bejust, legal and equitable---High Court was to protect fundamental rights guaranteed by theConstitution which would be regarded as inviolable under all conditions and could not beabridged.(h) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 4---'Law'---Meaning.2011 SCMR 1; 2009 PLC (C.S.) 966; 2010 SCMR 1301 and 2011 PLC (C.S.) 1130 rel.(i) Public functionaries-------Duty---Public functionaries were obliged to act within four corners of mandate of /Constitution and law.(j) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 9---'Life'---Meaning.Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry v. President of Pakistan PLD2010 SC 61; Rana Aamer Raza Ashfaq v. Dr. Minhaj Ahmad Khan 2012 SCMR 6 and AIR 1950SC 27 rel.(k) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 25-A---Right to education---Scope---Every man and woman had right to acquire abilityto read, write and attain knowledge without discrimination.Fiaqat Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 224 rel.(l) Interpretation of statute-------Preamble---Scope and object---Preamble was the key to understand the statute and preamblewas a clause at the beginning of the statute explanatory of, the reasons for its enactment and theobject sought to be accomplished.

Summary: ''The Chairman or Member of District Bait-ul-Mal, being non-official Member performing voluntary service, cannot be termed persons in the service of a statutory body. The Chairman or Member of District Bait-ul-Mal is not barred under section 27(2)(e) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 from contesting elections for local bodies. Two year post-resignation/retirement bar from contesting elections does not apply to Chairman or Member of District Bait-ul-Mal.''

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.