Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The appointment and or recruitment in a public sector company like Peshawar Electric Supply Company Ltd is an executive function and such function cannot be performed by the Wafaqi Mohtasib under Article 9 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib Order 1983 which excludes his jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of the nature. If, ex facie, the Ombudsman is not conferred with such a power, and the order of the nature is passed by it, the High Court can always in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction rectify such error----The case involves a dispute regarding the authority of the Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) to recommend appointments in the Peshawar Electric Supply Company (PESCO) under a reserved quota. WAPDA, the parent organization, reserved 20% of posts in certain categories for the children of its deceased or retired employees. Applicants sought appointments in PESCO under this quota, and the Wafaqi Mohtasib recommended their appointments after relaxing certain conditions. PESCO contested these recommendations, arguing that the Wafaqi Mohtasib exceeded its authority.The legal precedent referenced in the case is the case of Raft Ullah Khan v. Settlement Commissioner, Lahore (1998 SCMR 84). In this case, the court likely addressed issues related to jurisdiction and the scope of authority of administrative bodies or ombudsmen. The court examined the jurisdiction of the Wafaqi Mohtasib as per the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib Order 1983 and subsequent legislation. It interpreted "maladministration" broadly as inefficient or improper handling of matters, encompassing various malpractices opposed to law, fair play, and principles of equity and justice.n However, the court emphasized that the Wafaqi Mohtasib's powers are not absolute and are subject to restrictions outlined in Article 9 of the Order. It ruled that the Wafaqi Mohtasib cannot intervene in executive functions such as appointments in public sector companies like PESCO, particularly when it involves relaxing age limits. The court concluded that the Wafaqi Mohtasib's jurisdiction is limited by Article 9 of the Order and does not extend to ordering or recommending appointments in companies like PESCO. It allowed the petition, setting aside the previous judgment.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--------Ss. 121, 124(4), 129, 132 & 137(2)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 39, 42 & 54---Suit for cancellation, declaration and permanent injunction---Best judgment assessment---Assessment giving effect to an order---Disposal of appeal by the Appellate Tribunal---Due date for payment of tax---Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) had been directed to decide the plaintiff's appeal within certain period and till final disposal of the plaintiff's appeal, the defendants had been restrained from taking any coercive action against the plaintiff---Tabulation made by the plaintiff, wherein certain heads of account had been either deleted or sent for rectification under S. 221 of Income Tax Ordnance, 2001, was not disputed---In terms of S. 124 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, where direct relief was provided in order under Ss. 129 & 132 of the Ordinance, the Commissioner would issue Appeal Effect Order within two months of the date the Commissioner was served with the order---In pursuance of S. 137 (2) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, where any tax was payable under assessment order or amended assessment order or any other order issued by the Commissioner under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, a notice would be served upon the taxpayer in the prescribed form specifying the amount payable and thereupon the sum so specified would be paid within 15 days from the date of the service of the notice---Original demand notice had been issued prior to amended assessment; hence, the same was not sufficient compliance of issuing notice of demand in pursuance of amended assessment to provide opportunity of 15 days specifying the total amount in pursuance of amended assessment---Compliance to Ss. 124 (4) & 137(2) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was necessary---Appeal Effect Order was an amended assessment tabulation and the same had to be given effect like any other amended decree---High Court directed the defendants to deposit the amount, which had been recovered by them from the Bank account of the plaintiff, in the Court till further orders."

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.