Summary: Public interest litigation---The petitioner's counsel filed the petition, claiming that the mentioned documents were illegal and sought for them to be quashed using the court's writ jurisdiction. However, issues related to the maintainability of the petition were raised, including the petitioner's locus standi (legal standing), the absence of an alternative remedy to challenge the MOU, and the potential application of the doctrine of laches (unreasonable delay in filing a claim). The petitioner's counsel acknowledged that the petitioner wasn't personally aggrieved by the matters being challenged but argued that the petitioner's status as a Member of Parliament allowed her to invoke the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner alleged that the MOU violated public procurement rules but had not pursued remedies available under those rules or elsewhere. The court noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that she qualified as an aggrieved person for the purposes of invoking writ jurisdiction and that no justification for the delay in filing the petition was provided. The court explained that Article 199 of the Constitution grants discretionary writ jurisdiction to the court, to be exercised upon the invocation by an aggrieved person and in the absence of an adequate remedy. The court found that the petitioner did not meet the definition of an aggrieved person and had not exhausted available remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. The court also noted that the allegations made by the petitioner were based on disputed questions of fact, which are not typically entertained in writ jurisdiction. The court further emphasized that public interest litigation should be pursued for genuine public interest and not for publicity or personal motives. Given the lack of legal standing, absence of an alternative remedy, and potential delay in filing the petition, the court concluded that the petitioner's case did not justify invoking the discretionary writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Issue(s):Whether the caretaker government has the authority to remove and appoint Additional and Assistant Advocate-Generals.The legality and constitutionality of the impugned Notifications regarding the removal and appointment of law officers.--- Holding: The court found the removal of law officers to be within the scope of the caretaker government's authority. However, the appointment of law officers who previously served in the same government was deemed unjustifiable, lacking public interest justification, and thus ultra vires of law including Section 230 of the Elections Act, and not sustainable??.---- Reasoning: The caretaker government is limited to conducting day-to-day affairs and ensuring fair and transparent elections. Major policy decisions, including appointments, should be deferred to the incoming elected government. The court noted that the impugned Notifications lacked justification in public interest and were retroactively defended, which is not acceptable in constitutional jurisdiction??.--- Rule of Law: The caretaker government is restrained from making substantial policy decisions or appointments that could influence administrative or political landscapes. Actions must be confined to day-to-day administration and maintaining neutrality, without taking undue advantage or making irreversible decisions??.--- Analysis: The judgment emphasizes the limited mandate of caretaker governments, highlighting the importance of neutrality and impartiality in the pre-election phase. It clarifies the scope of authority regarding appointments and removals, ensuring caretaker actions are reversible and do not pre-empt the authority of the future elected government??.

Summary: BackgroundAshfaq Ahmad Kharal and 21 other petitioners, including the Advocate General Ahmed Awais as petitioner No.22, challenged various notifications dated January 24, 2023, which resulted in the removal of the Advocate General of Punjab, 32 Additional Advocate-Generals, and 65 Assistant Advocate-Generals. These actions were taken by the caretaker Chief Minister of Punjab, which were questioned in terms of their legality and appropriateness.---IssuesWhether the caretaker government has the authority to remove and appoint high-level legal officers such as the Advocate General and others.The appropriateness of these actions taken by the caretaker government under the legal and constitutional framework governing caretaker administrations.---Holding/Reasoning/OutcomeThe Court, led by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, held that the notifications for removal and appointment issued by the caretaker government were within their rights and duties. The Court found that:The caretaker government has the authority to make temporary appointments and removals to ensure the administration continues to function smoothly and that it can carry out its primary function of ensuring free and fair elections.The actions taken were in the public interest to maintain neutrality and the functioning of the government during the election period.However, the Court also set aside part of the appointments on the grounds that some of the newly appointed law officers had served under the previous government, which could compromise the perceived neutrality of the caretaker government.Legal Precedents:Caretaker Government?s Authority: Under Pakistani law and established conventions, a caretaker government is limited in its powers compared to a regular elected government. Its main role is to ensure the smooth transition of power through free and fair elections. It is typically restricted from making major policy decisions or appointments that could affect the incoming government?s policy direction.Public Interest and Neutrality: The Court emphasized that the caretaker government's actions must be in the public interest and should aim to preserve the neutrality of the government during the election period.Legal Precedents and Statutes: Various Pakistani legal precedents and statutes were considered, particularly those relating to the powers and functions of caretaker governments, the responsibilities and appointment/removal of the Advocate General, and other legal officers.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: [--Discussion on Section 107, 109 and 44 of Income Tax Ordinance 2001---Avoidance of Double Taxation in view of Double Taxation Treaties---Article 31 of the Vienna Convention 1969.----Review jurisdiction under Article 188 of the Constitution read with Order XXVI of Supreme Court Rules 1980 and Order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC]

Summary: It is pertinent to mention here that the legislative enactment could be struck down by this Court onlyon two grounds where the appropriate legislature did not have competency to make the law and secondly, the enactment abridged any of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution or any other constitutional provisions. Reference can be made to the case titled State of M.P Vs. Rakesh Kohli and another (2013 SCMR 34) .10. We are faced with similar situation frequently and find that in many cases, candidates have domiciles of different Districts/ places at a time and they are applying simultaneously on these domiciles, depriving the genuine candidates of the same area of their rights. It is the need of thehours that a uniform and online system be developed, whereby, only one domicile is to be retained at a time as required under the law. Except the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission, no other Departments have the capacity to check the practice of applying for appointment on different domiciles simultaneously. This issue requires to be resolved by the Government because, on the issue of double domiciles, there are hundreds of cases of appointments as well as for admission in colleges and institutions.11. The facts in some of the cases pending today, we have noticed that candidates have changed their addresses in their CNICs after the cut-off date to bring them eligible within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act , albeit, it is by now well settled that a candidate must be eligible in all respectin accordance with the advertisement on the last date of submission of applications for appointment and any subsequent changes after the cut-off date for bringing such candidate as eligible, are not sustainable.

Summary: Background: The case involves a dispute over the partition of land. Mst. Ghulam Bibi (respondent No. 1) filed for partition of her inherited property before the Assistant Commissioner, Tank. Afsar Khan (petitioner) opposed the partition, arguing that the land had been developed into a residential area, thus removing the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. Additionally, a declaratory suit was pending before the Civil Judge in Tank. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the petitioner’s objections. Subsequent appeals and revisions to the Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, and Member-I Board of Revenue Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were also dismissed. Consequently, the petitioners filed this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution before the Peshawar High Court. ------ Issues: ------ 1) Whether the revenue authorities had the jurisdiction to partition land that had been allegedly developed into a residential area. ------ 2) Whether the pendency of a declaratory suit before a civil court bars the revenue authority from proceeding with partition. ------ 3) Whether the petitioners' actions, including the development of the land into a colony without proper approvals, affect the partition rights of the co-sharers. ------ Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition, ruling that: Mere plotting of the land did not change its nature from agricultural to residential, and the revenue authorities retained jurisdiction over partition proceedings. No houses had been built on the land, as noted in the Patwari's report, so the property had not been fully transformed into a residential colony. The petitioners' development of the land into a residential area without obtaining legal approvals did not deprive the revenue authorities of their jurisdiction to partition the land. Furthermore, partitioning the land was necessary to protect the rights of all co-sharers, including the respondent. The petitioners were aware of the respondent’s share in the property but sought to create delays by developing the land without proper approvals and opposing the partition. The court condemned this as an attempt to prolong litigation and deprive the respondent of her rightful inheritance. The court criticized the practice of male heirs using fraud and delaying tactics to deprive female heirs of their rightful inheritance, referencing a prior Supreme Court ruling on similar issues. The petition was dismissed with costs. ------ Citations/Precedents: "Mst. Parveen (deceased) through L.Rs v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others" (2022 SCMR 64) "Faiz Ullah and others v. Dilawar Hussain and others" (2022 SCMR 1647) "Faqir Ali and others v. Sakina Bibi and others" (PLD 2022 SC 85) "Khan Muhammad through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Khatoon Bibi and others" (2017 SCMR 1476) "Mst. Gohar Khanum and others v. Mst. Jamila Jan and others" (2014 SCMR 801) "Ghulam Qasim and others v. Mst. Razia Begum and others" (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 812)

Summary: Background: Allama Iqbal Open University filed a writ petition against the Ministry of Zakat & Ushar. The specific details of the petition's subject matter are not provided in the order sheet. ----Issues: The main issue in this proceeding is the request by the Assistant Attorney General representing the Ministry of Poverty Alleviation (formerly Ministry of Zakat & Ushar) for additional time to file fresh para-wise comments. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Dr. Muhammad Ali and Mr. Irfan Ahmed Awan appeared on behalf of the Ministry of Poverty Alleviation. The Assistant Attorney General requested time to file fresh para-wise comments on behalf of the Ministry of Poverty Alleviation. The court granted the request and ordered that a copy of the comments be provided to the petitioner's counsel in advance. The case was scheduled for re-listing on 22-03-2023.

Summary: The word life used in Article 9 of the Constitution is very significant as it cover all fact of human existence and a person is entitled to protection of life in terms of Article 9 of the Constitution. State has to protect citizen by providing adequate medical facilities for its people and it is a essential part of obligation undertaken by a Government in a welfare state.