Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O. XLVI, R.1---Maintainability of Reference---Insurance Tribunal, Multan referred legal questions to High Court under O.XLVI, R.1, C.P.C for guidance---Held, provision only applicable where decree is not subject to appeal and question of law or usage having force of law arises that causes reasonable doubt---In instant case, claim was filed under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, wherein remedy of appeal to High Court is explicitly provided under S.124(2) of the Ordinance---Since appeal lies against decisions of the Insurance Tribunal, Reference to High Court under O.XLVI, R.1, C.P.C was not maintainable---Reference lacked statutory sanction and was liable to be returned to Tribunal without addressing the questions raised therein. ----Cited Cases: • Barju Biswal v. Kanja Behari Mahapatra A.I.R. 1931 Patna 353 • Mukanda v. Birdychand A.I.R. 1953 Hyd. 271 (b) Insurance Ordinance, 2000: ----S.124(2)---Remedy of Appeal---Decision of Insurance Tribunal---Any aggrieved party, if claim or penalty involved is not less than Rs. 100,000, has a statutory right of appeal to High Court within 30 days---Held, existence of this appellate remedy excluded jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain Reference under O.XLVI, R.1, C.P.C---Proper forum for redressal of legal issues arising out of Tribunal proceedings is appellate jurisdiction under the Ordinance, not advisory jurisdiction under C.P.C. ----Disposition: Reference held not maintainable; returned to Insurance Tribunal for further proceedings in accordance with law.

Summary: (a) Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974—Special Education Department (Directorate) Service Rules, 2006 ----Promotion---Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)---Deferment of promotion due to proposed amendments in Rules—Authority of DPC—Scope Promotion to post of Lecturer Physical Education (BS-17) under 25% quota for PETs/PTIs/DPEs with requisite qualifications could not be withheld on ground that existing rules required amendment—DPC deferred petitioner’s promotion on such basis despite her fulfilling all eligibility conditions including possession of M.A. in Physical Education (1st Division)—Held, DPC has no authority to question or suspend enforceability of valid service rules framed under law—Proposed amendments cannot override binding effect of existing rules—Petitioner had legitimate expectation of being considered for promotion—Decision of DPC declared unlawful, violative of right to be considered for promotion—DPC directed to reconsider petitioner’s promotion within one month. Cited Cases: • Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Anwar 2025 SCMR 153 • Naseem Khan v. Government of KPK 2024 SCMR 1341 • Federal Public Service Commission v. Shiraz Manzoor 2023 SCMR 2087 • Muhammad Amjad v. DG QDA 2022 SCMR 797 • Abdul Hameed v. Ministry of Housing & Works PLD 2008 SC 395 • Muhammad Ishaque v. Govt. of Punjab 2005 SCMR 980 (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 9---Right to life---Scope and expansion---Inclusion of right to livelihood and career progression Right to life under Art. 9 of Constitution includes right to live with dignity, encompassing right to livelihood and professional advancement—Held, arbitrary deferment or obstruction in promotion amounts to denial of fair opportunity and violates constitutional guarantees—Transparent and merit-based promotion processes essential for realizing right to livelihood—Career stagnation due to unlawful service practices renders constitutional rights hollow and illusory—Legitimate expectation of promotion, once eligibility is met, forms part of constitutional protection under Art. 9. Cited Cases: • Shehla Zia v. WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693 • Pir Imran Sajid v. Managing Director 2015 SCMR 1257 • Abdul Wahab v. HBL 2013 SCMR 1383 • Federation of Pakistan v. Jahanzeb 2022 SCMR 2020 • Mrs. Farkhanda Talat v. Federation of Pakistan 2007 SCMR 886 • Divisional Superintendent v. Umar Daraz 2023 SCMR 761 • Province of Punjab v. Kanwal Rashid 2021 SCMR 730 (c) Civil Service—Public Administration ----Impartiality of civil service—Meritocracy—Effect of political interference Supreme Court highlighted that civil bureaucracy must remain apolitical, professional, and merit-based—Observed that promotion processes must not be delayed arbitrarily or subjected to manipulation based on anticipated rule changes—Civil servants serve the Constitution, not political masters—Undue interference erodes morale, impartiality, and trust in public institutions—Quaid-e-Azam’s directive to civil servants cited: duty is to loyally serve any government formed under constitutional process—Transparent service laws essential to guard against favouritism and ensure equal opportunity. Cited Cases & References: • Muhammad Nasir Ismail v. Government of Punjab 2025 SCP 57 • Tariq Aziz-ud-Din 2010 SCMR 1301 • Quaid-e-Azam’s Address to Civil Officers (Peshawar, 1948) • Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization • Lorne Sossin, Speaking Truth to Power (2005) • E.N. Gladden, An Introduction to Public Administration (1952)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 9, 18, 25 & 199---Police Rules, 1934, Rr. 12.2, 12.9---Standing Order No.6 of 2015---Recruitment---Disqualification on ground of concealment---Scope---Petitioner applied for the post of Constable, was placed at Serial No.82 on the merit list but disqualified for allegedly concealing registration of an FIR (No.74/2024) dated 10.02.2024---Held, concealment must be wilful and deliberate, not merely non-disclosure---Application was submitted on 11.02.2024, merely hours after the FIR was registered late at night in another district---No evidence suggested the petitioner had knowledge of FIR at the time of submission---Mens rea is essential for imputing concealment---Penalizing without proof of knowledge violates principles of fairness, natural justice, and proportionality---Department failed to show how petitioner could have known about FIR within such a short time span---Rule of reasonableness and legitimate expectation mandates fairness in assessing integrity---Selection process must not be reduced to rigid formalism excluding meritorious candidates on mechanical grounds. Cited Cases: • Mirza Shahzeb v. City Police Officer, Rawalpindi 2023 PLC (CS) 749 • Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 (Indian SC) Disposition: Petition allowed. Respondents directed to process petitioner’s case for appointment as Constable.

Summary: (a) Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 (as amended in 2016) ----Ss. 22-A, 23, 28 & 32---Adulterated food---Synthetic milk---Quantity threshold under statutory schedule---Failure to prove actual production or seizure---Conviction set aside---Appellants were convicted under various sections of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 for allegedly operating a synthetic milk manufacturing unit---Held, prosecution failed to prove ownership of premises or show appellants were actively manufacturing synthetic milk---No synthetic milk was seized; only ingredients were allegedly recovered---Schedule under S.22-A requires minimum threshold quantities to constitute an offence, but prosecution neither quantified recovered substances nor established whether threshold was met---No laboratory analysis was conducted to verify that the substances were indeed adulterants---Conviction based on such incomplete and unverified evidence could not be sustained. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Younis v. Essa Jan 2009 SCMR 1169 **(b) Criminal trial---Appreciation of evidence---Failure to produce material evidence---Consequences---Punjab Food Authority raid---Prosecution failed to exhibit or produce articles allegedly recovered during raid---No documentary proof tendered in evidence to establish seizure or chemical composition of said items---Violation of Rule 14-F, Part-B, Chapter-24, Volume III of the Lahore High Court Rules which mandates production of circumstantial articles in court and proof of their identity through witnesses---Trial court overlooked this vital procedural lapse---Such omission rendered prosecution evidence deficient and insufficient for conviction. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Rafique v. The State PLJ 2011 SC 191 (c) Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 ----S. 13(2)---Failure to comply with statutory requirement---Non-preparation and delivery of seizure memo---Due process violation---Food Safety Officer failed to prepare and deliver a statement describing seized food items as required under S.13(2)---No proof that memo or seizure form was provided to the accused or mailed---Mandatory statutory requirement aimed at ensuring fair trial and transparency was not fulfilled---This legal flaw adversely affected the credibility of the prosecution’s case. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (X of 1984) ----Art. 129(g)---Withholding best evidence---Adverse presumption---Failure of prosecution to produce chemical analysis report, seizure memo, or actual seized articles led to presumption under Art.129(g) that evidence would have been unfavourable---Prosecution’s deliberate withholding of material evidence inferred to be with ulterior motive---Conviction based on such deficient record could not be maintained. **(e) Criminal trial---Benefit of doubt---Scope---Synthetic milk production not proved---Evidence of PW-1 admitted no synthetic milk was seized---Presence of raw materials alone insufficient to establish offence without proving active preparation or intent---Prosecution failed to send material for chemical analysis---Held, in criminal jurisprudence, even a single doubt is enough for acquittal---Appellants extended benefit of doubt and acquitted. Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted. Sureties discharged.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 185(3) Maintainability---Intra Court Appeal---Status of "Shaheed"---Challenge to High Court order granting declaration of "Shaheed" to police constable injured during police encounter---Supreme Court observed that the police official, Muhammad Saif Ullah, sustained fatal injuries during performance of official duty, leading ultimately to renal failure and death---Medical board reports indicated high probability that death was sequelae of primary firearm injury---Refusal to grant Shaheed status based on minor medical uncertainty was held unjustified---Beneficial legislation must be interpreted liberally to favor claimant---Appeal found devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly. (b) Police (Award of Compensation) Rules, 1989 ----R. 12---Declaration of Shaheed---Scope---Death of police official subsequent to injuries sustained in performance of duty---Interpretation of Rule 12---Court held that death resulting even after passage of time from primary injuries sustained during encounter falls within the purview of Rule 12---No requirement under rules that death must be immediate---High probability of death caused by primary injury sufficient---Court emphasized liberal construction of beneficial legislation to grant rightful entitlements. (c) Evidence and Burden of Proof ----Degree of proof---Beneficial claims---Scope---Claimant seeking declaration of Shaheed not required to discharge burden of proof to the standard applicable in criminal trials---Court held that in beneficial legislations, higher degree of certainty is not required---Minor medical ambiguities do not defeat legitimate claims where primary causal link remains reasonably established---Approach of police department expecting strict criminal standard of proof was repelled. Cited Cases: • Ghous Bakhsh v. Government of Punjab (2022 LHC 3163) • Mst. Nusrata v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Defence, Islamabad and 8 others (2020 PLC (C.S.) 1046) • Firdous Shafiq v. Inspector General of Police and others (2020 PLC (C.S.) 505) • Asad Imran and another v. Inspector General of Police, Punjab Lahore and others (2023 PLC (C.S.) 1013) • Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Zainab Bibi (2007 SCMR 1086) • Government of the Punjab, Food Department through Secretary Food and another v. Messrs United Sugar Mills Ltd. and another (2008 SCMR 1148) • Secretary Finance Division, Islamabad v. Muhammad Zaman, Ex-Inspector, I.B., Islamabad and others (2009 SCMR 769) • McGhee v. National Coal Board ([1972] 3 All ER)

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.42 & 54---Election of Pakistan Airline Pilots’ Association (PALPA)---Retired member---Entitlement to contest---Appellant / plaintiff was a retired pilot and member of PALPA whose nomination papers for the seat of President were rejected on the plea that retired member could only contest for Executive Committee and not for any principal offices---Suit filed by appellant / plaintiff was dismissed by Judge in Chambers of High Court---Validity---Election was based on one-seat for one-member formula; no contingent proposition could be borrowed to change such formula into one-seat for two or more-members to ensure representation of a particular category of members---Rider that retired members would vote for two seats reserved for retired pilots in ECM could not be stretched to have any bearing to the election of principal offices, particularly when no such intrusion was visible in the Constitution of Pakistan Airline Pilot’s Association---For Executive office, no condition had been provided in the Constitution nor any such distinction was admitted anywhere---Every member regardless of his status as retired or otherwise was competent to contest election and was eligible to propose and second such candidature and competent to vote for it---It was only in regard to the special category of Executive Committee Member in which since two seats had been reserved for retired pilots, the right to vote for such seats was conferred to their own category---Division Bench of High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court and suit was decreed in favour of appellant / plaintiff---Intra Court Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Muhammad Ali Lakhani for Appellant. Imtiaz Ali Ansari for Respondent No. 1. Date of hearing: 8th April, 2025.

Summary: (Against the orders/judgments dated 12.09.2024 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in Const. P. No. D-4002 of 2019, Const. P. No. D-6074 of 2021 and Const. Ps. Nos. 774 and 2385 of 2022). Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S. 19---Notification S.R.O. 565(I)/ 2006, dated 05-06-2006 and S.R.O 474(I)/2016, dated 24-06-2016---Customs duty---Exemption---Duty in excess of zero percent---Applicability---Petitioner/importer was aggrieved of imposition of import duty on chemical imported---Validity---Treatment of goods disclosed in S .R.O. 565(I)/2006, dated 05-06-2006 were subject to fulfillment of certain obligations---Amended S.R.O. 474(I0/2016, dated 24-06-2016 itself put petitioner/importer under obligations to provide its qualification in order to fectch exemption which was only available for manufacturing or formulation of agricultural pesticides by manufacturers and formulators and that could only be recognized and approved by the Ministry of National Food Security and Research---Column (2) of S.R.O. had restricted and prescribed a condition and treatment of goods of column (3) in terms of exemption of customs duty could only be if condition prescribed in Column (2) was met---Petitioner/importer was neither recognized nor approved by the Ministry of National Food Security and Research either as manufacturer or formulator of Agricultural pesticides---If petitioner/importer had chosen to protect any such alleged right which claimed to have been violated by the S.R.O., the petitioner/importer was at liberty and if any such right was exercised, it should be dealt with in accordance with the law, and permission as such was not required---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Taimur Aslam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in all cases). Dr. Farhat Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (FBR) (in C.Ps. Nos. 5029, 5031-5032 of 2024). Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. No. 5030 of 2024). Date of hearing: 18th April, 2025.

Summary: (Against the orders/judgments dated 12.09.2024 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in Const. P. No. D-4002 of 2019, Const. P. No. D-6074 of 2021 and Const. Ps. Nos. 774 and 2385 of 2022). Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S. 19---Notification S.R.O. 565(I)/ 2006, dated 05-06-2006 and S.R.O 474(I)/2016, dated 24-06-2016---Customs duty---Exemption---Duty in excess of zero percent---Applicability---Petitioner/importer was aggrieved of imposition of import duty on chemical imported---Validity---Treatment of goods disclosed in S .R.O. 565(I)/2006, dated 05-06-2006 were subject to fulfillment of certain obligations---Amended S.R.O. 474(I)/2016, dated 24-06-2016 itself put petitioner/importer under obligations to provide its qualification in order to fectch exemption which was only available for manufacturing or formulation of agricultural pesticides by manufacturers and formulators and that could only be recognized and approved by the Ministry of National Food Security and Research---Column (2) of S.R.O. had restricted and prescribed a condition and treatment of goods of column (3) in terms of exemption of customs duty could only be if condition prescribed in Column (2) was met---Petitioner/importer was neither recognized nor approved by the Ministry of National Food Security and Research either as manufacturer or formulator of Agricultural pesticides---If petitioner/importer had chosen to protect any such alleged right which claimed to have been violated by the S.R.O., the petitioner/importer was at liberty and if any such right was exercised, it should be dealt with in accordance with the law, and permission as such was not required---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Taimur Aslam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in all cases). Dr. Farhat Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (FBR) (in C.Ps. Nos. 5029, 5031-5032 of 2024). Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. No. 5030 of 2024). Date of hearing: 18th April, 2025.

Summary: Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015 (VI of 2017)--- ----S. 2(d)---Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (Service) Regulations, 1984, Regln. 1(3)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100---Second appeal---Damages for loss of job and salaries etc.---Contract employee---Suit and appeal filed by respondent / plaintiff were decreed in his favour by two Courts below---Plea raised by appellant / defendant was that the suit was not maintainable---Validity---Respondent / plaintiff, under S. 2(d) of Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015, could not have approached the Authority and had correctly invoked jurisdiction of Civil Court---Lower Appellate Court and Trial Court did not examine terms of contract between respective parties and had placed undue reliance on minutes of meeting of Board of directors---Provision of Regln. 1(3) of Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (Service) Regulations, 1984, had restricted its applicability to contractual employees---High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below---Second appeal was allowed in circumstances. National General Insurance Company Ltd. through General Manager v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6 Rawalpindi and others 2004 SCMR 683; Muslim Commercial Bank Limited v. Rizwan Ali Khan and others 2024 SCMR 360; Habib Bank Limited v. Gulzar Khan and others 2019 SCMR 946; Dilshad Khan Lodhi v. Allied Bank of Pakistan and others 2008 SCMR 1530; Sheikh Akhtar Aziz v. Mst. Shabnam Begum and others 2019 SCMR 524 and Sohail and others v. Pakistan National Shipping Corporation C.P. D-830 of 2014 ref. Abdul Ghaffar for Appellants. Muhammad Abu Bakar Khalil for Respondent along with Muhammad Absam Khalil and Nency Dean. Ahmed Khan Khaskheli, A.A.G. Dates of hearing: 6th and 20th March, 2025.