Summary: Dismissal of appeal against the decree passed by the Additional Assistant Commissioner on the ground of limitation---scope--- Record showed that petitioner applied for copy of judgment on 06.03.2019, but they were provided copies on 25.03.2019 and appeal was filed on 11.04.2019--- The time spent for getting copies of the judgment has to be excluded from being counted for the purpose of limitation--- The order passed by the additional assistant commissioner and upheld by Member Board of Revenue were found legally and patently correct--- Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. (Writ Petition Dismissed)

Summary: (a) Right to Information for Corporate Entities Under RTI Law: --- Right of Access to Information Act, 2017, S. 11 – Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 19A – Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 Respondent, a corporate entity, sought disclosure of minutes of PTA meetings regarding a telecom license—PTA refused, arguing that only citizens can request information under the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017—Held, while corporate entities are not citizens under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, a harmonious interpretation of "citizen" and "applicant" under the RTI Act permits legal entities to seek information—Reliance placed on Al-Raham Travels v. Ministry of Religious Affairs (2011 SCMR 1621), where corporate entities were allowed to claim fundamental rights. (b) Corporate Access to Fundamental Rights in Pakistan: --- Legal Person vs. Citizen – Corporate Veil – Constitutional Interpretation Held, while the Constitution distinguishes between "citizens" and "persons" in various fundamental rights, jurisprudence has evolved to grant corporate entities access to certain constitutional protections—Courts in Pakistan, India, and the U.S. have allowed companies to claim rights initially meant for individuals—Reliance placed on Pakcom Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 44), Mirza Shaukat Baig v. Shahid Jamil (PLD 2005 SC 530), and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (435 U.S. 765). (c) Disclosure of Government Records Under RTI Law: --- Right of Access to Information Act, 2017, S. 7 – Exemption for Minutes of Meetings PTA argued that meeting minutes were exempt under Section 7 of the Act—Held, exemption applies only to preliminary discussions before a final decision—Since a final decision had been made, disclosure was required—Reliance placed on D.G. Khan Cement Co. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2013 Lahore 693). ----Disposition: Petition dismissed—PTA directed to provide information except for deliberative discussions exempt under Section 7 of the Act. ----Cited Cases: Al-Raham Travels v. Ministry of Religious Affairs (2011 SCMR 1621) Pakcom Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 44) Mirza Shaukat Baig v. Shahid Jamil (PLD 2005 SC 530) First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (435 U.S. 765) D.G. Khan Cement Co. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2013 Lahore 693)

Summary: Background: The petitioner, M/s Rural Empowerment & Institutional Development (REPID), filed two writ petitions challenging the actions of the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and other respondents regarding the selection process for the Lead Partner Organization (LPO) for the project "Reaching Out-of-School Children (OOSC)." The petitioner contested the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the first-ranked bidder, M/s ALIGHT, after initially being selected as the LPO due to the disqualification of M/s ALIGHT for failing to provide the NOC within the stipulated time. ----Issues: 1- Legality of the NOC Issued to M/s ALIGHT: Whether the NOC issued to M/s ALIGHT was legal and if the subsequent proceedings were lawful. 2- Rights and Obligations of the Selected Bidder: Whether the petitioner, being the second-ranked bidder, had a valid claim to the project. 3- Jurisdiction and Proper Forum for Dispute Resolution: Whether the writ petition was the appropriate remedy and if the petitioner exhausted all available remedies. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Legality of the NOC Issued to M/s ALIGHT: The court found that the initial disqualification of M/s ALIGHT due to the lack of an NOC was valid. However, M/s ALIGHT later provided the required NOC, which led to their re-evaluation and subsequent selection. The reissuance of the NOC to M/s ALIGHT and the associated proceedings were deemed legal and in compliance with the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) rules. --Rights and Obligations of the Selected Bidder: The court emphasized that M/s REPID, as the second-ranked bidder, could not claim preference over M/s ALIGHT once the latter met all the requirements. The petitioner's past performance issues, including defaults in previous projects, were considered valid reasons for their non-selection despite their initial provisional acceptance. --Jurisdiction and Proper Forum for Dispute Resolution: The court noted that the petitioner had approached the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) but did not challenge its decision or include the GRC as a respondent in the writ petition, rendering the petition incompetent. The court underscored that the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appealing the GRC decision as provided under the PPRA rules. The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, concluding that: The NOC issued to M/s ALIGHT was legal, and the subsequent proceedings were conducted in compliance with applicable rules. The petitioner's claims were invalid due to past performance issues and the proper selection process favoring M/s ALIGHT. The petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedy provided by the PPRA rules and did not challenge the GRC decision appropriately. The court reiterated the importance of following procedural rules and exhausting all available remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction. The petitions were dismissed, and all associated applications for interim relief were also denied. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1971 SC 624: Established that where no special court or tribunal is designated for a claim, the aggrieved party can approach the civil court. 1993 CLC 2026: Affirmed the jurisdiction of civil courts when substantive rights are involved. 2018 SCR 331: Held that filing multiple writ petitions on the same subject matter is not maintainable. PLD 1983 SC 28: Stated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked where disputed questions of fact are involved. PLD 1959 (W.P) Lahore 932: Emphasized the necessity of proving the validity of a transaction when legal heirs are deprived.

Summary: Held: (i) The Court should not interfere in internal governance of an educational institution.(ii) We are of the view that the constitution of examination hall is the expertise of the respondents, which they should have a right and use in the manner as deemed proper, unlessit infringes on the fundamental rights of the students.(Writ Petition Dismissed)

Summary: The petitioner, Muhammad Aslam, challenged the auction of sand blocks in Lahore by the Mines and Mineral Department, Punjab (MMD), claiming it was conducted without obtaining the necessary approval from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The petitioner argued that the auction contravened a previous court decision and an undertaking by MMD, potentially causing loss to him if he succeeded in the auction due to delays in obtaining the NOC.--- Issue:Whether the auction of sand blocks by MMD without obtaining an NOC from EPA was lawful and in accordance with environmental and procedural requirements.--- Judgment:The petition was dismissed. The court found that the MMD had obtained the necessary NOC from EPA and taken measures to ensure compliance with environmental regulations in future auctions.--- Reasoning:The court referred to a previous case (Ch. Ghulam Rasool vs. Province of Punjab, etc.) and a Supreme Court judgment (Public Interest Law Association of Pakistan vs. Province of Punjab) to establish that MMD is responsible for obtaining environmental approvals before initiating the auction process. The court was satisfied that MMD had complied with these requirements and taken steps to prevent unauthorized mining and ensure transparency in the auction process. The court also criticized the petitioner's conduct, noting inconsistencies in his stance in different legal proceedings, which indicated that he was not genuinely interested in participating in the auction but rather in stopping it for personal gain.Precedents Cited:Chaudhry Ghulam Rasool vs. Province of Punjab and others, Writ Petition No. 9428 of 2019, Lahore High CourtPublic Interest Law Association of Pakistan vs. Province of Punjab and others, Constitutional Petition No. 55 of 2020, Supreme Court of PakistanMrs. Zeenat Ahmed vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and others, 2015 PLC (C.S.) 719Wali Muhammad and others vs. Sakhi Muhammad and others, PLD 1974 Supreme Court 106Faiz Bakhsh and others vs. Deputy Commissioner/Land Acquisition Officer, Bahawalpur and others, 2006 SCMR 219Major (Retd.) Ahmed Nadeem Sadal and 3 others vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Sports, Islamabad and 3 others, 2015 CLC 34Legal Principles:The Mines and Mineral Department (MMD) must obtain environmental approvals before initiating the auction process for mining blocks.The High Court's discretion under Article 199 of the Constitution is exercised equitably, and relief is granted only to petitioners who demonstrate good faith and compliance with legal standards.Litigants are expected to disclose related pending litigations and maintain transparency to ensure fair judicial proceedings.

Summary: Writ Petition.Held: Constitution of Pakistan 1973--Article 199--West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964--Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961--S.9--Suit by wife for recovery of maintenance allowance, dower, dowry articles etc--Family Court decreed the suit granting maintenance, provision of separate house, while remaining suit was dismissed while husband was granted decree for restitution of conjugal rights---Appeal filed by the parties were, however, dismissed ----Objection to grant of decree of maintenanc eallowance by the husband in the constitutional petition --S.9 of the Muslim Family LawsOrdinance, 1961, makes it incumbent upon the husband to provide maintenance if event he wife is staying away from the husband due to just and valid reason---mistreatment and forcible ouster forced the wife to live apart---husband is bound to provide maintenance to the respondent/wife--Both the courts below have properly evaluated the record and have correctly appreciated the record---constitutional petition being merit less stands dismissed.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a construction and engineering company, sought payment of enhanced price escalation amounts for two phases of a project involving the improvement and resurfacing of the Bhimber Jattlan Road. The petitioner claimed that the project’s scope had been revised, which should have led to an increase in the price escalation factor as per the agreement terms. However, the respondents failed to revise the price escalation in accordance with the agreed terms, despite acknowledging the increased costs. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, which was initially accepted but later remanded by the Supreme Court for further consideration on two key issues. ----Issues: 1- Whether the contractual obligations, such as those in the present case, can be enforced through a writ petition. 2- Whether complex questions of fact can be resolved in the writ jurisdiction by the High Court. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Contractual Obligations and Writ Jurisdiction: The court noted that generally, contractual disputes, particularly those involving detailed factual disputes and requiring evidence, should be resolved by civil courts rather than through writ petitions. The court referred to various precedents which emphasize that routine contractual disputes are not typically within the purview of constitutional writ jurisdiction unless there is clear evidence of unlawful action or violation of statutory provisions. --Complex Questions of Fact: The court found that the issues in the present case involved complex and disputed facts, particularly regarding the calculation and entitlement to price escalation. Such disputes typically require detailed evidence and a thorough probe, which are best handled by civil courts. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner should seek arbitration or other appropriate remedies provided under the PPRA Rules, 2017, or approach a civil court if necessary. The court underscored that the constitutional jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolving detailed contractual disputes involving complex factual determinations. ----Citations/Precedents: Pakcom Ltd. Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 44) Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Muhammad Siddique Khan (PLJ 2018 SC (AJ&K) 7) Messrs Airport Services v. Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport Karachi (1998 SCMR 2268) Punjab Small Industries Corporation v. Ahmad Akhtar Cheema (2002 SCMR 549) Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation (AIR 1990 SC 1031) The petition was dismissed, with the petitioner directed to pursue alternate remedies as specified.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, seeking to set aside orders passed by the Collector District Poonch on October 17, 2022, and the Commissioner Poonch Division on November 23, 2022. The petitioner argued that the appeal filed by the respondent, Rehana Kousar, before the Collector District Poonch, was barred by limitation and should have been dismissed. The petitioner sought the dismissal of the respondent's appeal and claimed that she had no alternate remedy except to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner had an alternate and efficacious remedy. 2- Whether the impugned orders passed by the Collector District Poonch and the Commissioner Poonch Division were lawful and just. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Alternate Remedy: The court found that the petitioner had an alternate remedy available in the form of a revision petition under Section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, before the Board of Revenue. The court emphasized that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 44 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974, can only be invoked when there is no alternate remedy available. The court cited relevant precedents that support the principle that when an alternate remedy exists, the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction should not be invoked casually. --Impugned Orders: The court noted that the impugned order dated November 23, 2022, passed by the Commissioner Poonch Division, was not a final order. Instead, it remanded the matter back to the Collector District Poonch for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. As such, it did not finally determine the rights of the parties. The court referred to precedents that indicate an order of remand is not a final order and does not preclude the availability of alternate remedies. The court dismissed the writ petition in limine, stating that the petitioner had an alternate remedy available and that the impugned order of remand did not finally determine the rights of the parties. The petitioner was advised to seek relief through the appropriate forum, i.e., the Board of Revenue, under Section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Iqbal Khan and another vs. Board of Revenue and another (2001 SCR 561) Khuda Bakhsh vs. Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) and 3 others (1976 SCMR 26) Allah Ditta and others vs. Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue and others (2018 SCMR 1177) The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to seek her remedy through the appropriate alternate forum.

Summary: The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, was sustained as being in accordance with the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan by a majority of 10 to 5, with certain judges in dissent.Sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act, which grants a right of appeal prospectively, was declared to be in accordance with the Constitution by a majority of 9 to 6, with some judges in dissent.Sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Act, which grants a right of appeal retrospectively, was declared to be ultra vires the Constitution (in violation of the Constitution) by a majority of 8 to 7, with certain judges in dissent.----- Affirming the right that the Chief Justice will no longer will be the master of the roaster, there will be a provision for appeals against all decisions made under article 184(3) including suo moto cases, and there will be no appeals in cases that have already been decided before enactment of the said law.