Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----O.I, R.8—Representative suits—Scope, conditions, and mandatory compliance— Where numerous persons have the same interest in one suit, one or more may, with the Court’s permission, sue or be sued on behalf of all; however, notice of the suit’s institution must be given to all such persons either personally or by public advertisement. Compliance with the notice requirement is mandatory, not directory—failure to issue notice vitiates the representative nature of the proceedings. The High Court, having adjudicated the writ petitions affecting Youth Councilors above 35 years without serving notice under O.I, R.8 CPC, violated mandatory procedure, rendering its judgment void ab initio. (b) Natural Justice—Audi alteram partem— Fundamental principle that no one should be condemned unheard—Applied to all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings— High Court’s omission to hear affected Youth Councilors before annulling their elections violated the rule of audi alteram partem and resulted in miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the right to be heard is an essential component of fair trial, derived from Islamic jurisprudence and reflected in Quranic commands (Surah Nisa 4:135; Surah Maida 5:8 & 5:42). (c) Representative Suits—Procedural Requirements— Permission to sue or be sued in a representative capacity and notice under O.I, R.8 CPC are formal preconditions before the suit acquires representative character—Judicial permission and compliance with notice are necessary to bind persons not on record—In absence of such compliance, the decree or judgment binds only those actually before the Court. (d) Administrative Justice—Fair Hearing and Islamic Principles— Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done—Islamic injunctions enjoin unqualified adherence to fairness and impartiality even against self, kin, or adversary—Failure to afford opportunity to be heard offends both divine command and constitutional guarantee of fair trial under Art.10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan (as applicable to AJK). (e) Local Government (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022 (Ordinance VII of 2022)— Elections of Youth Councilors above age 35 held during statutory life of the Ordinance—Rights accrued thereunder could not be nullified without hearing affected members—High Court erred in declaring their elections void and seats vacant without complying with O.I, R.8 CPC. Cited Cases: • Mst. Seema v. Millennium Developers (2003 CLC 632) • Dattari Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. A. Razak Adamjee (1995 CLC 846) • Kumaravelu Chettiar v. T.P. Ramaswami Ayyar (AIR 1933 PC 183) • Adam Khan v. Gulla Meer (PLD 1982 SC 120) • Muhammad Aslam v. Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue Punjab (2019 CLC 1141) • Assasan Samal v. Chandarmani Paradan (dead) (AIR 2003 OR 1157) Disposition: Appeals allowed—Impugned consolidated judgment of the High Court dated 20.08.2024 and consequential notification dated 05.09.2024 set aside—Matter remanded to the High Court with direction to issue notice to all concerned Youth Councilors, afford opportunity of hearing, and decide afresh in accordance with law—High Court directed to prioritize and conclude proceedings within three months from communication of this judgment.

Summary: Background: This case pertains to the appointments of Assistant Sub-Inspectors (ASIs) in the Sindh Police Department’s IT Cadre. In 2004, 113 individuals were recruited as ASIs (Computer). Over time, these individuals were transferred to the Executive Branch of the police department. The Sindh High Court allowed a constitutional petition filed by some of these ASIs, which challenged their return to the IT Cadre after serving in the Executive Branch for nearly 20 years. The Province of Sindh and others (appellants) challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the original cadre assignments should be upheld. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether ASIs appointed in the IT Cadre should be transferred back to their original cadre after serving in the Executive Branch for nearly 20 years. ----- 2) Whether the newly impleaded respondents (appointed in the IT Cadre in 2019) were condemned unheard, violating the principle of audi alteram partem. ----- 3) Whether the High Court's impugned judgment, allowing the respondents to continue in the Executive Branch, was valid. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ASIs' Cadre Assignment: The Supreme Court upheld the right of the ASIs (Computer) recruited in 2004 to continue serving in the Executive Branch, emphasizing that these ASIs had undergone police training and served in executive roles for nearly two decades. The court ruled that their continued service in the Executive Branch would not be cited as a precedent for future cases. Their seniority and promotions would be governed by the law and rules. ----- Impleadment of New Respondents: The court set aside the adverse observations made by the High Court against the newly impleaded respondents (those appointed in the IT Cadre in 2019) because they were not given an opportunity to be heard. The principle of audi alteram partem was violated, and as a result, the adverse findings against them were expunged. ----- High Court’s Judgment: While the court allowed the respondents to remain in the Executive Branch, it did not allow this practice to set a precedent. Additionally, the court directed that all seniority and promotions must follow the established rules and regulations. ----- Citations/Precedents: Gul Hassan Jatoi v. Faqir Muhammad Jatoi (2016 SCMR 1254): The court referred to this case to emphasize that the cadre of subordinate police officials should be determined by their recruitment, training, and service experience. Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 & Rules: Applied for regulating the recruitment and service conditions of non-uniformed personnel, such as those in the IT Cadre, as opposed to the Police Act, 1861, which governs uniformed personnel. The appeal was disposed of in the above terms, affirming the service of ASIs in the Executive Branch while ensuring that no similar actions be used as precedent in the future.

Summary: Background:In the case of M/s Saeed Buksh (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Mst. Azra Bibi, the respondent filed an eviction petition under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 against the appellant. The appellant was proceeded against ex parte, resulting in the acceptance of the ejectment petition. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application seeking setting aside of the ex parte order, along with an application under sections 5 & 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay. Despite the respondent's failure to file a reply to these applications or controvert the attached affidavits, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the applications, leading to the filing of the instant appeal.----Issues:The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant was condemned unheard due to improper service of notice and whether the application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed within the prescribed limitation period. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the procedural irregularities warranted setting aside the ex parte order and remanding the case for fresh consideration.-----Holding:The Lahore High Court held that the appellant was condemned unheard due to improper service of notice, as there was no evidence to suggest that proper service had been affected. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of Audi Alteram Partem and decided to set aside the impugned order. The court also noted that the application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed within the limitation period prescribed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration.----Citations and Precedents:Abdul Karim v. Muhammad Ibrahim, 1976 SCMR 79Nasim Nizami v. Habib Bank Limited, 2006 CLC 1213-LahoreM. Imam Ud Din Janjua v. The Thal Development Authority through The Chairman, T.D.A., Jauharabad, PLD 1972 Supreme Court 123Mandi Hassan alias Mehdi Hussain and another v. Muhammad Arif, PLD 2015 Supreme Court 137Ghulam Qadir and others v. Sh. Abdul Wadood and others, PLD 2016 Supreme Court 712Allah Ditta v. Aziz Din, PLD 1981 Lahore 508

Summary: (a) Constitutional Law—Violation of Due Process & Fair Trial Rights----Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, Art. 44—Doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem—ApplicabilityHeld, ex-parte modification of the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order (PRTO) without summoning the necessary party was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and due process—The doctrine of audi alteram partem (right to be heard) was violated, as the petitioner and proforma respondents were not given an opportunity to defend their rights before the Custodian of Evacuee Property—Right to a fair trial and due process is constitutionally guaranteed, and any decision given in violation of such rights is liable to be set aside.(b) Allotment & Cancellation of Evacuee Property—Jurisdiction & Legality----Modification of allotment order without legal notice—EffectHeld, the modification of the PRTO in favour of respondent No. 3 was illegal and void ab initio as it was done in violation of the due process—Allotment rights of evacuee property must be determined after following legal procedures, and the Custodian was bound to ensure fair hearing before making any modifications—Failure to properly summon the affected party rendered the order legally unsustainable.(c) Pending Adjudication Before Commissioner Rehabilitation—Effect on Custodian’s Order----Overlapping jurisdiction—Legal implicationsHeld, the issue of allotment rights of all allottees of the disputed survey land was already pending before the Commissioner Rehabilitation—Custodian’s modification order contradicted the previous direction for determining entitlements, making it legally unsustainable—Jurisdictional conflict must be resolved before any final order on allotment rights can be passed.(d) Writ Jurisdiction & Judicial Review—Custodian’s Order Set Aside----High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction—Scope & powersHeld, High Court had jurisdiction to review the Custodian’s order under Article 44 of the AJK Interim Constitution, 1974—Since the impugned order was passed without affording a fair hearing, it warranted interference—The Custodian was directed to decide the matter afresh after receiving the Commissioner’s report and granting a full opportunity of hearing to all parties.Disposition:Writ petition allowed—Impugned order set aside—Case remanded for fresh decision after due process.

Summary: Background: The petitioners filed two suits for declaration based on a registered sale deed, which were initially dismissed. Upon appeal, a compromise decree was entered on 29.02.1994, based on statements by two of the respondents, without the involvement of their sister contending that the compromise was fraudulently entered to deprive her of her rightful inheritance, filed applications under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), which were initially dismissed. She then filed civil revisions, which led to the setting aside of the compromise decree by the Lahore High Court. This judgment was further challenged by the petitioners. -----Issues: 1- Jurisdiction of the Court: Whether the Lahore High Court had the jurisdiction to dismiss the original suits while allowing the revision petitions related to the Section 12(2) C.P.C. applications. 2- Right to a Fair Hearing: Whether the petitioners were denied the opportunity to present their defense, violating the principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard). 3- Legal Consequence of Accepting Applications under Section 12(2) C.P.C.: Should the case be restored for trial on the merits instead of dismissing the suit outright? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the original suits after setting aside the compromise decree. Once the compromise was nullified under Section 12(2) C.P.C., the appropriate action would have been to restore the appeals and decide the case on its merits, rather than dismissing the suits outright. The dismissal deprived the petitioners of the opportunity to defend themselves and seek a decision on the merits of the appeals. The Court recognized that the petitioners were not given a fair hearing, as they were not present or represented when the decision was made, and the principle of audi alteram partem was violated. This warranted a reconsideration of the case. In line with the precedent established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Haji Farman Ullah v. Latif-ur-Rehman (2015 SCMR 1708), the Court ruled that upon setting aside the compromise decree, the proper course of action was to restore the appeals and include Mst. Mumtaz Mai as a necessary party. The appeals should be decided on their merits, not dismissed summarily. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Mumtaz Mai v. Sajjad Hussain (PLJ 2015 Lahore 581) Haji Farman Ullah v. Latif-ur-Rehman (2015 SCMR 1708)

Summary: (1) Discussion on Rule 17 of North West Frontier Constabulary Rules, 1958 with Sections 8 to 13 of the North West Frontier Constabulary Act of 1915 which germane to punishments. (2) Right of fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution. (3) Compliance of principles of natural justice. (4) Doctrine of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution. (5) Nemo bis punitur pro eodem delicto- no one should be punished twice for the same offence. (6) Nemo debet bis vexari- a man must not be put in peril twice for the same offence. (7) Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium'- it concerns the state that there be an end to law suits. (8) Doctrine of complete justice] The appellant, Sohail Ahmad, was initially transferred as a punishment from Platoon No. 44 FC Malakand to Platoon No. 509 FC Daryoba, and subsequently made junior most in Platoon No. 509 FC Daryoba through another office order. He filed a departmental appeal and a representation, which were not responded to by the department. As a result, he appealed to the Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal on grounds of limitation without considering the merits of the case. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to consider the appellant's contentions regarding the violation of the principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) and the imposition of double punishment for the same alleged offence. The appellant argued that the entire proceedings against him were illegal and violated the Frontier Constabulary Rules, 1958. He claimed to have been condemned unheard, and the subsequent order of making him junior most in the platoon was harsh. He contended that both orders were non-speaking and issued without issuing any show cause notice or providing a hearing. The central issue in this appeal is whether the appellant could be punished twice for the same alleged offence. The appellant's complaint led to an inquiry against his colleagues, but not against himself. The inquiry found the appellant's allegations baseless and made recommendations for his transfer. However, neither a show cause notice nor a hearing was provided to the appellant before imposing the punishment of transfer or upsetting his seniority. The Court held that the appellant's right to a fair trial, guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, had been violated. The principles of natural justice require affording the delinquent a fair opportunity to present their case and contest the charges. Additionally, the imposition of double punishment for the same offence violated Article 13 of the Constitution, which prohibits prosecution or punishment for the same offence more than once. The Court, therefore, concluded that the appellant's appeal had merit, and the orders of punishment were set aside. The case was remanded to the appropriate authority for a fresh inquiry, affording the appellant a fair opportunity to be heard.

Summary: Bail granted---The case involved the appellants/applicants who were allegedly involved in a criminal case registered at Police Station Hadyara, Lahore, under various sections including Sections 302, 324, 337-F(iii), 148, 149 PPC, and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (later deleted). They were accused of committing murder and causing injuries to several individuals. The appellants were convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, with imprisonment for life and other penalties. They filed criminal miscellaneous applications seeking release on bail pending the disposal of their appeal, citing the delay in deciding their appeal and their non-convict status as grounds for bail. The case discussed the jurisdiction of a Single Judge versus a Division Bench as per Lahore High Court Rules and Orders. It emphasizes that the mere filing of an appeal against the acquittal of co-accused does not bar a Single Bench from hearing an appeal against conviction and sentence. The court referred to Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which mandates the issuance of notice to the appellant or his pleader and the accused when an appeal is not dismissed summarily. It underscores the principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) as enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The court cited the amendment made in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2011, regarding statutory delay, which grants applicants the right to seek suspension of sentences and bail.The decision to grant bail to the applicants was based on considerations such as the length of their incarceration, the nature of the offense, and the absence of evidence suggesting they are dangerous criminals or accused of terrorism. In conclusion, the court accepted the applications for suspension of sentences and grants bail to the appellants pending the final decision of the appeal. I

Summary: In all proceedings by whosoever held, whether judicial administrative, principles of natural justice have to be observed if proceedings result in consequence affecting person or property or other rights of parties concerned. Without participation of party effected by an order or a decision amounts to an action without lawful authority. Requirement of Audi Alteram Partem is not confined to proceedings before courts but extends to all proceedings by whomsoever held which may affect a person or property or other rights of parties concerned in dispute--- Principles of natural justice must be read into each and every statute unless and until it is prohibited by statute itself.

Summary: The case revolved around the acquisition of land for the construction of a police station. Initially, land belonging to the Agricultural and Livestock Department was acquired, but objections were raised, and the acquisition was withdrawn. Subsequently, another property owned by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 was acquired but later de-notified. Eventually, the land owned by respondent No. 1 was notified under the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner contended that the High Court's judgment was legally flawed and factually incorrect, and the acquisition was for a public purpose. They argued that the High Court made observations against individuals who were not parties to the proceedings. The Supreme Court examined the case and found that the High Court's reliance on the element of mala fide was unsupported by evidence presented prior to the filing of the writ petition. The Court noted that the aspect of alleged mala fide lacked a legal foundation. The High Court's restoration of the notification for land acquisition without providing notice to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 was also criticized, as the principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) was not followed. The Court remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to afford an opportunity of hearing to all parties involved.

Summary: University of Balochistan Act (III of 1996)-------Ss. 10 & 11---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 10-A---Constitutional petition---Rightto fair trial---Cancellation of degree---Scope---Petitioner assailed declaration issued byDeputy Controller of Examination (Certificates) on the order of Chancellor whereby his B.A.Annual Examination result and degree were cancelled---Petitioner's result and degree wereearlier declared to be genuine but on an appeal of the petitioner's political opponent underSs.10 & 11 of the University of Balochistan Act, 1996, the Chancellor had passed theimpugned declaration---Validity---Respondents had failed to place on record a single iota ofevidence of proceedings carried out by the Chancellor to establish that the petitioner hadfailed to appear before the appellate authority, which prima facie reflected that whatsoeverhad been done nothing was carried out in accordance with law---Petitioner was condemnedunheard (Audi alteram partem) in sheer violation of Art. 10-A of the Constitution---Noopportunity of fair trial was extended to the petitioner and the manner so adopted fordecision of appeal was highly objectionable and had rendered the impugned declaration asillegal, void ab initio and without lawful authority---No provision of appeal was provided inSs.10 & 11 of the University of Balochistan Act, 1996, against the inquiry report inconnection with the unfair means of examinations---Constitutional petition was accepted andthe impugned declaration was set aside.