Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199---Writ of mandamus---Waiting list---Administrative inaction---Petitioner placed second on waiting list for post of Food Grains Supervisor---Vacancy arose during validity period due to non-joining of selected candidates---Administrative department failed to timely request recommendation of petitioner and allowed waiting list to expire---Held, expiry of waiting list validity due to departmental lapse cannot prejudice petitioner's right---Petitioner entitled to appointment notwithstanding lapse---Writ petition allowed. (b) Service Law ----Waiting list---Principles governing---Scope and enforcement---Administrative department obligated to promptly notify and fill resultant vacancies arising during currency of waiting list---Delay or arbitrary exercise of discretion in requesting substitute violates doctrine of legitimate expectation and principles of fairness---No fresh recruitment undertaken---Petitioner's right crystallized upon occurrence of vacancy during validity period. (c) Administrative Law ----Recruitment process---Transparency and efficiency---Directions to Government---Court directed Government and Public Service Commission to evolve structured, transparent, and time-bound mechanism ensuring vacancies arising during validity of waiting list are promptly filled---Practice of delaying appointments to accumulate vacancies condemned---Failure to fill vacancies promptly may render candidates overage, frustrate legitimate expectations, and undermine fairness. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ali Shah v. Inspector General of Police, etc. (W.P. No. 14059/2020, Lahore High Court) • Government of Punjab through Secretary Cooperative Societies Department v. Asad Abbas (2022 SCMR 739) • Shabana Akhtar v. District Coordination Officer, Bhakkar (2012 PLC (C.S.) 366) • Asad Abbas v. Government of the Punjab (2024 PLC (C.S.) 142)

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – S. 12(2) – Fraud and misrepresentation – Setting aside judgment Application under S. 12(2), CPC – Judgment obtained through fraud – Respondent, while obtaining judgment dated 03.11.1992 in W.P. No.819/1972, deliberately failed to implead the applicant as respondent despite specific court direction to do so – Instead, applicant was falsely shown as co-petitioner by altering party memo – No notice issued to applicant, and judgment passed without hearing it – Held, any judgment or decree obtained through concealment, fraud, or misrepresentation is a nullity and liable to be set aside – Impugned judgment set aside. Cited cases: Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1973 SC 236; Lahore Development Authority v. Firdous Steel Mills 2010 SCMR 1097; Mst. Nazeeran v. Ali Bux 2024 SCMR 1271 (b) Limitation Act, 1908 – Art. 18 – Applicability to S. 12(2) CPC applications – Fraud exception Limitation – Start of limitation period – Applicant filed application under S. 12(2), CPC upon discovery of fraud – Held, no limitation applies against a void or fraudulent judgment – Time begins from the date of knowledge – Application filed within time – Objection to limitation overruled. Cited cases: Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din PLD 2022 SC 353; Mst. Rabia Gula v. Muhammad Janan 2022 SCMR 1009; Shabla v. Ms. Jahan Afroz Khilat 2020 SCMR 352 (c) Constitution of Pakistan – Art. 269 – Validation of Presidential Orders – Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972 Nationalization of life insurance – Constitutional protection – Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972 promulgated on 18.03.1972 – Validated under Art. 269(1), Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Held, Order of 1972 protected from judicial scrutiny and cannot be challenged on any ground – Jurisdiction of High Court barred. Cited cases: The Chief Settlement Commissioner v. Raja Fazil Khan PLD 1975 SC 331; Muhammad Baran v. Member (Settlement) PLD 1991 SC 691; Mansab Ali v. Amir PLD 1971 SC 124 (d) Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972 – Arts. 4, 5, 6, 45 – Bar of jurisdiction – Public property Jurisdiction of courts – Public assets – Property in dispute vested with Central Government following nationalization – Under Art. 45 of the Order, jurisdiction of courts including High Court and Supreme Court is barred – Held, courts cannot entertain writs or suits in relation to nationalized insurance assets – Writ petition not maintainable. Cited provisions: Articles 4, 5, 6 & 45 of Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972 (e) Equity – Duty of disclosure – Clean hands doctrine – Public property Fraudulent concealment – Respondent failed to disclose that it had received full compensation for the nationalized property and had pursued separate civil litigation for further recovery – Held, concealment of material facts disentitles party from any relief – Courts are guardians of public interest and must act to prevent misuse of public property – Petition rightly dismissed. Cited cases: Mst. Shahida v. BISE Larkana PLD 2001 SC 26; Sayed Abbas Taqi Mehdi v. Sabahat Batool 2010 SCMR 1840; Abdul Haq Indher v. Province of Sindh 2007 SCMR 907 Disposition: Application under S. 12(2), CPC allowed – Judgment dated 03.11.1992 set aside – Writ Petition No.819/1972 dismissed as not maintainable due to fraud, misrepresentation, and constitutional bar on jurisdiction.

Summary: Dropping/cancellation of case by Anti Corruption Establishment stands on different premise to one contemplated in Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules, 1934.

Summary: "If the accused refused production of any document to be used against him, prosecution can tender secondary evidence of such document." ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898—Ss. 94, 540—Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984—Arts. 76, 77, 159—Constitution of Pakistan, 1973—Art. 13—Summoning of documents—Self-incrimination—Secondary evidence—Scope and limitations. Petitioner challenged order of Additional Sessions Judge directing him to produce allegedly forged certificates, claiming protection under Article 13 of the Constitution against self-incrimination. The Court held: —While a party may be summoned to produce documents in their possession under S. 94 Cr.P.C., no individual can be compelled to produce evidence against themselves. —Refusal to produce a document entitles the opposing party to lead secondary evidence under Article 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. —Giving notice under Article 77 is mandatory unless exempted; exemptions apply where the adverse party (a) must know they would be required to produce it, or (b) obtained it through fraud or force. —Article 159 QSO requires that if the document is produced and inspected, it must be exhibited if demanded by the producing party. —If production is refused, such document cannot be used later without consent under Article 160 QSO. Cited Case: Syed Ikram Gardezi v. The State (1980 PCrLJ 941) (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973—Art. 13—Right against self-incrimination—Scope clarified. The Court reaffirmed that although Article 13 guarantees protection from self-incrimination, the mere request to produce a document does not violate this right unless compliance is coerced. The discretion to produce lies with the accused. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984—Art. 14—Consent-based production—Corporate records. Petitioner’s consent to produce disputed certificates from TCS Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. record placed an obligation on the custodians (TCS officials) to produce those documents if available, under Article 14 QSO. (d) Disposition—Directions to trial court—Corporate summons. Court upheld the order of Additional Sessions Judge with clarification: Magistrate may issue fresh summons to CEO of TCS Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi if the Sahiwal branch cannot produce the record. In case of non-production, respondent No.4 is entitled to lead secondary evidence as per Article 74 QSO. ---- Disposition: Petition disposed of with directions. Certificates to be summoned from TCS record; in case of failure, secondary evidence to be allowed under QSO.

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957—S. 8—Review Jurisdiction—Scope—Not a bar to constitutional petition. Provision under Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, offering review jurisdiction is limited to clerical errors and new facts, and does not constitute an adequate alternate remedy to bar constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, especially when no procedural safeguards were followed. —Availability of review not sufficient to oust High Court jurisdiction where petitioner was condemned unheard. Cited Cases: Daewoo Corp. v. Zila Council Jhang (2004 SCMR 1213) Haji Muhammad Boota v. Member (Revenue), BOR (2010 SCMR 1049) (b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—O. IX, Rr. 8 & 9—Dismissal for non-prosecution—Restoration without notice—Illegality. Restoration of a revision petition without issuance of notice to the opposing party, and simultaneous decision on merits, amounts to a violation of Order IX Rule 9 CPC and principles of natural justice. A revision dismissed in the presence of respondents cannot be revived and decided without affording them a proper hearing. —Order passed by Member (Judicial-IV), BOR, restoring and deciding revision petition same day, held to be illegal and without lawful authority. (c) Constitutional Law—Articles 4, 10-A—Audi Alteram Partem—Denial of fair hearing—Illegality. Restoration and disposal of revision petition without notifying adversary party amounts to condemning them unheard, violating Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution. Such actions undermine due process and fair trial guarantees, rendering orders susceptible to judicial review. Maxim Applied: Audi Alteram Partem—No one shall be condemned unheard. Cited Cases: Sh. Shajar Hussain v. Haji Abdul Majeed (2006 SCMR 913) Habib Bank Ltd. v. Mst. Parveen Qasim Jan (2014 SCMR 322) Allah Bakhsh v. Allah Yar (2017 CLC Note 9) (d) Administrative Law—Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit—No prejudice from act of court. Petitioner cannot be penalized due to an omission by a quasi-judicial forum in failing to observe mandatory notice requirement before restoring and deciding revision petition. Maxim Applied: Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit—An act of court shall prejudice no one. -----Disposition: Writ Petition Allowed. Order dated 01.08.2019 of Member (Judicial-IV), BOR Punjab set aside. Restoration application shall be deemed pending and decided after proper notice to all parties. Observations on the Collector’s order dated 05.12.2015 deferred, to be determined only if revision is properly restored.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan – Art. 184(3) – Transfer of judges – Challenge to notification Original jurisdiction – Transfer of judges – Constitution Petitions filed under Art. 184(3) challenging Notification No. F.10(2)/2024-A.II dated 01.02.2025 whereby three Judges were transferred to the Islamabad High Court – Petitioners included bar associations and individuals – Held, matter involves questions of public importance with reference to enforcement of fundamental rights, particularly transparency in judicial appointments and inter-court transfers – Notices issued to all respondents; Attorney General appeared representing Federation and President of Pakistan – Further record directed to be submitted. Cited provisions: Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 184(3), 200 (b) Judicial Commission of Pakistan – Rules 9 & 10 – Notice and agenda of meeting Judicial appointments – Procedure for convening meeting of Judicial Commission – As per Rules 9 and 10 of JCP Rules, 2024, a minimum 15-day notice required for scheduling meeting and sharing agenda with members – Held, Attorney General’s statement confirmed that no JCP meeting had been scheduled for appointment/confirmation of Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court; next JCP meeting set for 2nd May, 2025 related to other High Courts – Statement taken on record. Cited rules: Judicial Commission of Pakistan Rules, 2024, Rr. 9 & 10 (c) Constitution Petition – Withdrawal – Doctrine of dominus litis Withdrawal of petition – Islamabad High Court Bar Association moved application CMA No.2168/2025 for withdrawal of C.P. No.23/2025 – Application filed by current President pursuant to resolution of Managing Committee dated 15.04.2025 – Held, current petitioner is dominus litis; withdrawal permitted and petition dismissed as withdrawn along with pending stay application. Cited principles: Doctrine of dominus litis (d) Judicial independence – Role of bar associations and state organs – Fairness in transfer of judges Judicial independence – Constitutional oversight of inter-court transfers – Petitioners raised concerns regarding transparency and legality of transfers – Held, issue touches upon independence of judiciary and the role of bar associations as constitutional stakeholders – Court to examine record including law ministry summary, Prime Minister’s advice, and President’s notification – Directions issued for submission of relevant documents and seniority lists from High Courts. Cited provisions: Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 200 Disposition: C.P. No. 23/2025 dismissed as withdrawn – Connected petitions adjourned to 22.04.2025 – Respondents and Registrars directed to file concise statements and seniority lists.

Summary: (a) Customs Act, 1969 ‑‑‑Ss. 2(s), 156(1)(8), (89) & (90), 187 & 211—Registered motor‑vehicles, already bearing verified provincial registration or sold through a Government auction, cannot be seized or confiscated merely because the present possessor is unable to produce original import documents—Once such owner shows (i) an authenticated registration book issued under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 or (ii) genuine auction papers, a “lawful excuse” within the meaning of cl. (89) is established, shifting the burden to Customs to prove (through affirmative evidence) that the vehicle entered Pakistan via an unauthorised route or without payment of leviable duties—Failure by Customs to discharge that onus renders the seizure illegal.  Cited cases: Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Panther Sports 2022 SCMR 1135; Privy Council PLD 1955 PC 29. (b) S. 211, Customs Act—Limitation for record‑keeping—Importers and other stakeholders are bound to preserve import records only for three years (five years after Finance Act 2007)—Where more than the prescribed period has elapsed from the date of auction or first registration, no adverse inference can be drawn from non‑production of import papers, and seizure founded solely on that omission is unsustainable. (c) S. 2(s)(ii) & SRO 491(I)/85 (23‑5‑1985) as amended 14‑9‑1998—Motor‑vehicles brought into Pakistan before 14‑9‑1998 (when vehicles were first added to the notified list of goods) are not per se “smuggled goods” under cl. (ii); to attract that clause Customs must affirmatively show import through an undeclared route under S. 2(s)(iii). (d) Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 ‑‑‑Ss. 23‑43 & 27—Statutory procedure for inspection and registration creates a presumption of regularity; a duly verified registration certificate is an “other document prescribed by law” for purposes of S. 187, Customs Act, and constitutes prima facie evidence of lawful title to the vehicle. (e) Tampering exception—Where the engine or chassis number has been obliterated, re‑punched or otherwise falsified to match a different vehicle, or where auction/registration documents are proved forged, the defence of lawful excuse is unavailable; such vehicles remain liable to confiscation under Ss. 156(1)(89) & (90). (f) Burden of proof—“Lawful authority” vs. “lawful excuse”—“Lawful authority” in S. 187 demands strict proof of a permit or licence, whereas “lawful excuse” in cl. (89) calls only for a plausible explanation; equating the two would impermissibly narrow the statutory defence. Once a plausible excuse is shown, Customs must prove smuggling by positive evidence—the mere absence of import documents does not suffice.  Cited cases: Privy Council PLD 1955 PC 29 (distinction affirmed). Disposition—All twenty‑three civil appeals filed by Customs dismissed; Sindh High Court judgments affirmed. Registered or auctioned vehicles to be released to respondents; only those proven to bear tampered identifiers or forged papers remain subject to confiscation in accordance with law.

Summary: (a) Customs Act, 1969 ----Ss. 2(s), 9, 10, 156(1)(8), (89), (90), 187, 211---Motor vehicles---Smuggling---Burden of proof---Lawful excuse--- Held, a motor vehicle registered through the official process under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, and in possession of a verified registration book, is presumed to have been lawfully imported unless Customs Authorities establish otherwise through credible evidence---Failure of owner to produce import documents after expiry of statutory record-keeping period (five years under S.211, substituted by Finance Act, 2007) does not render the vehicle “smuggled” in terms of S.2(s)---Such owner has a “lawful excuse” under S.156(1)(89), and burden shifts back to the Customs Department to prove the charge of smuggling through positive evidence---Held, lawful excuse is a lesser burden than “lawful authority” under S.187 and suffices as a statutory defence to penal confiscation---Presumption of legality attaches to registration issued under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. Cited Cases: • Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Panther Sports, 2022 SCMR 1135 • PLD 1955 PC 29 (Privy Council) • PLD 2003 SC 688 (Muhammad Akram case) (b) Customs Act, 1969 & Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 ----S. 211 & Ss. 23–43 M.V.O., 1965---Registration of vehicle---Auctioned vehicles---Retention period of import records--- Where a vehicle is registered after lapse of five years from its auction or entry into Pakistan, presumption of regularity in official acts applies and no adverse inference can be drawn against the registered owner for non-production of import documents---Motor vehicle registration involves physical inspection and verification under Ss. 27–30 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, thereby reinforcing the presumption of legality unless fraud or tampering is established---Court held that once this statutory registration process is completed and verified, such vehicle cannot be treated as smuggled solely due to absence of import record beyond the statutory period. (c) Customs Act, 1969 ----Ss. 156(1)(89) & (90), 211---Tampered vehicles---Effect---Limitation of statutory defence--- Lawful excuse under S.156(1)(89) is not available in cases where it is proved that chassis or engine numbers were tampered with after registration or auction to match another vehicle’s description---Such alteration without prior approval under Motor Vehicles Ordinance nullifies statutory protection and permits Customs to proceed with confiscation---Held, exception to protection exists only where auction reports explicitly disclose tampering or such alterations were lawfully approved. (d) Interpretation of Statutes---General v. Specific Provisions ----S. 187 v. S. 156(1)(89) & (90), Customs Act, 1969---Lawful authority v. lawful excuse---Distinction--- Supreme Court clarified that S.187 (general provision) deals with lawful authority, i.e., documentation issued under law, while S.156(1)(89) & (90) (special provisions) refer to lawful excuse, which has a broader and more lenient threshold---Lawful excuse includes bona fide registration, passage of statutory period, and lack of knowledge of wrongdoing---Held, imposing the higher burden of S.187 on penal provisions under S.156 would defeat legislative intent---Interpretation must favor special provision in case of conflict. **(e) Search and Seizure---Procedure---Female passengers and privacy--- ----S. 162, Customs Act, 1969---Search guidelines---Respect for privacy--- While upholding the customs authorities' investigative powers, Court directed that searches and interceptions be conducted with due regard for individual dignity and privacy, especially in the case of women---Female customs officers and lady sepoys must be involved in such procedures to avoid undue hardship or violation of personal dignity---Strict compliance with statutory safeguards under S.162 emphasized. **(f) Public Administration---Presumption of official acts---Vehicle registration--- Statutory registration of a vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 creates a presumption of legality in administrative actions---Where government agencies have registered a vehicle and verified ownership, it is presumed to be lawful unless fraud is proved---Held, seizure of such vehicles without clear evidence of wrongdoing or tampering is arbitrary and inconsistent with settled legal norms---Customs Authorities must adopt joint verification mechanisms with registration authorities to prevent such disputes in future. Disposition: Appeals dismissed. Questions of law decided in favour of registered vehicle owners. Customs Department failed to discharge burden to rebut presumption of lawful importation and possession.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 184(3)---Constitutional petitions---Challenge to transfer of judges---Maintainability---Scope of judicial review--- Multiple constitutional petitions were filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution challenging Notification No.F.10(2)/2024-A.II dated 01.02.2025, whereby three Judges were transferred to the Islamabad High Court---Petitioners included bar associations, former office bearers, and individuals---Court issued notices to respondents including the President, Federation, Provincial Advocates General, and Registrars of various High Courts---Held, matter raises significant constitutional questions and was adjourned for further proceedings after initial directions and clarification regarding pending JCP meetings were recorded. (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 200---Transfer of Judges---Withdrawal of petition---Authority of bar association to withdraw constitutional petition---Doctrine of dominus litis--- Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA), through its newly elected Managing Committee, sought withdrawal of its constitutional petition (C.P. No. 23/2025) via resolution dated 15.04.2025---Court noted that while the original petition was filed by the previous Managing Committee, the new committee, being dominus litis, was competent to withdraw it---Held, petition stood dismissed as withdrawn along with connected application for interim relief. Disposition: C.P. No. 23/2025 dismissed as withdrawn. (c) Judicial Commission of Pakistan Rules, 2024 ----Rr. 9 & 10---Scheduling of meetings---Fifteen days’ notice---Court query regarding JCP deliberations--- Court inquired whether any meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) was scheduled for the appointment or confirmation of Chief Justice Islamabad High Court---Learned Attorney General submitted that no such meeting had been scheduled and that the upcoming JCP meeting fixed for 02.05.2025 pertained only to the Peshawar and Balochistan High Courts---This statement was recorded by the Court---Held, any meeting of the JCP is to be convened in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rules 9 and 10 of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan Rules, 2024. (d) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 175-A---Representation of JCP in judicial proceedings---Clarification regarding absence of authorisation--- Court queried the Attorney General whether he was appearing on behalf of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP)---Learned Attorney General clarified that he had not received any such instructions and was only appearing for the Federation and the President---Held, statement recorded; any representation of the JCP must be based on prior authorisation. **(e) Constitutional Procedure---Record of executive action---Call for production of summary and supporting material--- Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the concise statement filed by the Federation lacked the underlying record including the summary moved by the Ministry of Law and Justice for transfer of judges---Learned Attorney General undertook to submit the complete record before the next hearing---Held, such record shall include the summary to the Prime Minister and advice to the President in terms of Article 200 of the Constitution. Disposition: Constitution Petition No. 23/2025 dismissed as withdrawn. Remaining petitions adjourned to 22.04.2025 for further proceedings. Respondents including Advocates General and Registrars directed to file concise statements and seniority lists of Judges.

Summary: Award of compensation awarded to the landowners as per nature and kind of acquired land.