Summary: (a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) ---- ----Ss. 17, 168, 171, 179 & 180---Import Policy Order, 2013, paras. 5(vii), 9(ii)(1) & (5)---Detention and seizure of imported prime movers---Jurisdiction of customs authorities---Legality---Construction companies imported prime movers (Hino vehicles) claiming entitlement under para 9(ii)(5) of the Import Policy Order, 2013 (IPO, 2013)---Vehicles were later found displayed for sale in petitioners’ showrooms instead of being used in their construction projects---Held, that import under para 9(ii)(5) was restricted to the importer’s own operational use and not for commercial resale---Customs authorities were, therefore, justified in detaining and seizing the vehicles for violation of the IPO, 2013---Interpretation of the High Court on this point having been maintained earlier by the Supreme Court had attained finality and could not be reopened in a subsequent adjudication---Tribunal’s contrary findings were unsustainable in law. (b) Doctrine of election --- ----Remedies and forum---Once a party has elected to pursue one of the available legal remedies and obtained a final adjudication thereon, it cannot subsequently invoke another parallel remedy on the same cause of action---Petitioners, having contested detention and seizure proceedings up to the Supreme Court, were barred from reopening the same issues in adjudicatory or appellate proceedings before the Tribunal---Doctrine of election and principle of past and closed transactions applied. (c) Import Policy Order, 2013 ---- ----Restriction on import of prime movers---Interpretation---Under para 5(vii) read with Appendix-C of the IPO, 2013, vehicles falling under PCT heading 8701.2040 were not freely importable and were subject to prohibitions except in limited circumstances enumerated in para 9(ii)---Such permission was confined to certain industries, including construction and petroleum sectors, and was meant for their own operational use---Commercial exploitation by way of resale defeated the intent of the legislation and was rightly disallowed by customs authorities. (d) Administration of justice --- ----Finality of litigation---Lower forums are bound by the interpretation rendered by the Supreme Court on a question of law---Tribunal acted in excess of jurisdiction by disregarding the binding interpretation of IPO, 2013 earlier affirmed by the Supreme Court---Reopening concluded issues constituted abuse of process. Held, that the Tribunal’s order allowing the appeals of petitioners was contrary to law and rightly set aside by the High Court. Civil petitions converted into appeals and dismissed. Cited Case: • Muhammad Raqeeb v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2023 SCMR 992).

Summary: (a) Environmental law—National parks—Forest land—Public trust doctrine—Notification declaring “National Musk Deer Park, Guraiz” (24-09-2007)—Legal effect—Once forest land is notified as a national park, it cannot be subjected to allotment, private occupation, or regularization on so-called humanitarian or administrative “oral permissions”—Protection of ecological assets is a constitutional imperative; State holds such resources in trust for present and future generations—High Court’s direction to protect notification and evict illegal occupants affirmed. (b) Encroachment—Burden and proof—Commission report (05-10-2018) and Deputy Commissioner’s comprehensive report (post-leave order 06-05-2025) established unauthorized possession and constructions within park limits—No documentary sanction or regularization shown—Plea of displacement (1982–1991) and “oral resettlement” by functionaries rejected—Availability of proprietary land in Village Phulawi noted; claim of landlessness disproved—Presumption of correctness attaches to official record and surveys when unrebutted by credible evidence. (c) Judicial review—Environmental governance—Courts’ role—Where agencies fail to prevent encroachment/deforestation, constitutional courts may issue protective, restorative, and supervisory directions to secure public trust resources—High Court’s writ in public interest upheld as resting on sound factual appraisal and settled environmental principles. (d) Directions—Eviction and restoration—Forest Department and District Administration directed to remove all encroachments/constructions from National Musk Deer Park, Guraiz, and hand over recovered land to Wildlife & Fisheries Department—Operation to be completed within six months—Administrative cooperation mandated. (e) Systemic failures—Record-tampering and collusion—Court notes pervasive pattern across AJK of: (i) forest land being misrepresented as proprietary/Shamilat through manipulated revenue entries; (ii) procurement of decrees to mask usurpation; (iii) institutional inaction—Condemns collusion of elements within Forest/Revenue departments and public representatives—Calls for immediate structural reforms and accountability. (f) Policy/reform roadmap—Court urges Government to: constitute high-powered Forest Land Reclamation Task Force; conduct GIS/satellite mapping and create tamper-proof digital boundaries; audit two decades of revenue mutations and void fraudulent conversions ab initio; strengthen forest and land revenue statutes with deterrent penalties; retrieve and reforest encroached tracts under scientific plans; activate Environmental Courts/Green Benches; prosecute/discipline complicit officials; ensure transparency via public portals; institutionalize community stewardship; and consider a moratorium on civil suits involving forest land absent a certified forest-status report—Periodic oversight by Chief Secretary recommended. (g) Climate, biodiversity, and ecosystem services—Rationale and comparative guidance—Forests’ role in carbon sequestration, water/soil conservation, biodiversity, and disaster mitigation emphasized—Reliance placed, by way of guidance, on *Ilyas Jandalvi & others v. PDA & others* (2022 SCR 812) discussing deforestation risks; Lahore High Court’s environmental survey in *PLD 2019 Lahore 664*; and Pakistan Supreme Court’s suo motu on “New Murree Project” (2010 SCMR 361). Disposition: Appeal dismissed—High Court judgment dated 21-10-2024 maintained—Eviction/restoration directions affirmed with six-month completion timeline—Copy to Chief Secretary AJK for implementation and strict compliance.

Summary: Background: The case revolves around two criminal original petitions filed by environmentalists against the government’s decision to transfer the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board (IWMB) from the Ministry of Climate Change and Environmental Coordination to the Ministry of Interior. The petitioners contend that this transfer is a violation of a previous Supreme Court order dated 11 June 2024, and allege that it is intended to facilitate the further desecration and destruction of the protected Margalla Hills National Park. ----Issues: 1- Whether the transfer of the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board from the Ministry of Climate Change to the Ministry of Interior is in violation of the Supreme Court's order dated 11 June 2024. 2- Whether the transfer of the IWMB to the Ministry of Interior, which lacks expertise in environmental protection, constitutes a mala fide action. 3- Whether the involvement of the Secretary Cabinet Division, whose brother has a direct interest in the matter, amounts to nepotism and a conflict of interest. 4- Whether the issuance of banners promoting "Margalla Hills Tree Drive 2024" is a guise for allowing the Pine City project, which could harm the National Park. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court, recognizing the seriousness of the allegations, questioned the legality and appropriateness of the transfer of the IWMB. The Court highlighted that the Ministry of Interior has no expertise in environmental protection and that the National Park should remain under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Climate Change. The Court also expressed concern over the Secretary Cabinet Division’s role, considering his familial connection with an interested party. The Court pointed out that bypassing established procedures for such a significant transfer raises serious questions about potential nepotism and a hidden agenda that could harm public interest. The Attorney-General, representing the government, acknowledged the issues raised and requested time to reassess the situation. He undertook that the contested notifications and orders would not be implemented until further notice, and that the National Park would remain under the Ministry of Climate Change. The Court postponed further action on the contempt petitions, expecting the government to provide a detailed response by the next hearing. Additionally, the Court sought full disclosure from the Capital Development Authority regarding any projects, including Pine City, that could affect the National Park. ----Citations/Precedents: Order dated 11 June 2024 - Previous Supreme Court directive regarding the protection of the Margalla Hills National Park. The Court emphasized the importance of following established government procedures and avoiding conflicts of interest in decision-making processes.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 199 Wheat Procurement Policy 2024 — Legality of Cabinet Decision — Discrimination — Financial Prudence — Strategic Food Reserves. The petitioners challenged the provincial cabinet's decision to procure 500,000 bags of wheat from Naseerabad Division at a subsidized rate despite existing financial liabilities and lack of storage capacity. The court observed that the decision lacked reasonable justification, particularly when bumper wheat crops had been recorded nationwide, and procurement prices in open markets were significantly lower than the government’s fixed Minimum Support Price (MSP) of PKR 4,000 per 40 kg. Furthermore, the differential treatment of farmers in Naseerabad Division, who benefit from free irrigation water, as opposed to farmers elsewhere in the province, constituted discrimination and violated the principle of equality before the law guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan. ----Cited Cases: Government of Balochistan v. Azizullah Memon, PLD 1993 SC 341 I.A. Sherwani v. Government of Pakistan, 1991 SCMR 1041 (b) Financial Management: ----Public Funds — Mismanagement — Prioritization of Debt Clearance — Provincial Policy Decisions. The Food Department of Balochistan is incurring a daily interest liability of PKR 2 million on existing commercial loans amounting to PKR 2.5 billion. The court highlighted the lack of financial prudence in approving further procurement expenditures without clearing outstanding financial liabilities. The decision to allocate PKR 500 million for wheat procurement, despite sufficient strategic reserves and lack of storage capacity, was held to be unreasonable and a misallocation of scarce financial resources. (c) Maladministration and Corruption: ----Procurement Irregularities — Malpractices — Accountability. Serious concerns were raised regarding corruption, irregularities, and maladministration in the wheat procurement campaign. Reports indicated that procurement benefits were being diverted to middlemen and large landlords instead of small farmers, and bardana (wheat storage sacks) intended for farmers was being illegally sold in open markets. The Director General of Food Department acknowledged these malpractices in official correspondence and highlighted incompetence and non-compliance with procurement protocols by the Project Director and related officials. (d) Policy Rationalization: ----Duplication of Functions — PASSCO — Viability of Provincial Food Department. The court questioned the continued existence of the Provincial Food Department, given the establishment of Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation Limited (PASSCO), a federal institution responsible for maintaining strategic food reserves. It was observed that the Provincial Food Department had failed to achieve its objectives, and its duplication of functions represented an unnecessary financial burden on the provincial exchequer. ----Disposition: The petitions were allowed, and the provincial cabinet's decision for wheat procurement at subsidized rates was declared illegal. The Chief Secretary was directed to divert the allocated PKR 500 million towards: Clearing outstanding loans Establishment of technical centers Water supply projects Town planning in Naseerabad Division Additionally, a high-level committee was directed to review and recommend the winding up of non-performing provincial departments, including the Food Department, to ensure efficient governance and financial discipline.

Summary: The petitioner, Ch. Rizwan Ali Raa, filed a writ petition challenging a scheme proposed by the Government of Punjab to provide 23,000 motorcycles to students, of which 19,000 would be petrol bikes. The primary concern was the environmental impact of introducing a large number of motorcycles into the traffic system of Punjab, potentially causing increased pollution and adverse effects on public health. The petitions were filed under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, which guarantees the right to life, emphasizing environmental concerns.-----Issues:Whether the scheme proposed by the Government of Punjab constitutes a "project" under the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997.Whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required before the commencement of the scheme.Whether the Government of Punjab followed the mandatory provisions of the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997, before launching the scheme.Whether the Transport Department can proceed with the scheme without prior approval from the Provincial Agency.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:----Definition of Project:The court examined the definitions provided in the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997, particularly the terms "adverse environmental effect," "project," and "proponent." It was determined that the scheme to provide motorcycles to students falls within the definition of a "project" as it involves a change in the environment and has potential adverse environmental effects.Requirement of EIA:The court emphasized that Section 12 of the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997, mandates that no proponent of a project shall commence construction or operation unless an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) or an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is filed with the Provincial Agency and its approval obtained. Given the environmental concerns associated with the scheme, an EIA was deemed necessary.----Non-Compliance with the Act:It was noted that the Transport Department did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act, 1997, by failing to submit an EIA before formulating and obtaining approval for the scheme. The Secretary of the Transport Department did not dispute the applicability of the Act under these circumstances.Prohibition and Obligation:The court highlighted that Section 19 of the Act, 1997, makes it an offense for any Government Agency to proceed with the implementation of a scheme without the approval of the Provincial Agency. The head of the Government Agency would be directly liable for punishment under the Act. Therefore, the Transport Department was obligated to submit an EIA and obtain approval before formally launching the scheme._----Citations/Precedents:Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997----Conclusion:The court disposed of the petitions with the following directives:The Transport Department must submit an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to the Provincial Agency for approval before the scheme is formally implemented and motorcycles are distributed.The Provincial Agency must engage private and independent consultants to review the submitted EIA and make recommendations. The fee for these consultants will be borne by the Transport Department.Until the approval is granted, the scheme will be held in abeyance, and no further steps will be taken by the Transport and Masstransit Department regarding the scheme.The court's decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to environmental regulations and ensuring that any project with potential adverse environmental effects undergoes a thorough assessment and receives the necessary approvals before implementation.

Summary: Issues:Whether the compensation and plot allotment commitments made by the Government of Sindh to the affectees of Gujjar, Orangi, and Mehmoodabad Nallahs were adequate and appropriately administered.Whether the orders regarding refunds for the purchasers of units in the demolished Nasla Tower have been complied with, and the proper handling of the deceased owner?s estate.The legality of public encroachments by government entities and the appropriate measures for removal.The responsibility of local governments towards environmental management, specifically regarding the maintenance and planting of trees on public pavements.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Gujjar, Orangi, and Mehmoodabad Nallahs: The court affirmed the commitment by the Government of Sindh to allot 80 square yard plots to the identified affectees and ordered prompt compensation as per previous stipulations. A directive was issued to finalize all claims within a specified timeframe.Nasla Tower: The court ordered that the land on which Nasla Tower stood should be auctioned, with proceeds going to the affectees, due to non-compliance with the refund orders by the deceased owner. The court also issued directives for handling the amenity plot according to the law.Public Encroachments: The court condemned the encroachment of public spaces by governmental entities, ordering the immediate clearance of such encroachments and recovery of costs from responsible parties.Environmental Concerns: The court directed local governments to conduct surveys and undertake the planting and maintenance of trees on public pavements to combat environmental degradation and enhance public welfare.----Citations/Precedents:Order dated 8 April 2024 for compliance on compensation to Gujjar, Orangi, and Mehmoodabad Nallahs affectees.Order dated 16 June 2021 regarding the refund responsibilities of the Nasla Tower owner.Order dated 22 September 2021 concerning the use of the amenity plot adjacent to Nasla Tower.Order dated 29 October 2021 addressing the failure to compensate purchasers in the Tejori Heights project.

Summary: Background:In the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, two related writ petitions, No. 2916 of 2006 and No. 7305 of 2019, were filed against the Federation of Pakistan by the heirs of the late Ameer of Bahawalpur, Sir Sadiq Muhammad Khan Abbasi. The petitioners challenged the vires of the notification No. SRO-436(I)2006, which distributed specific lands (Shikargah) among 23 legal heirs based on the recommendations of an implementation committee. The petitions raised questions of law and facts concerning the distribution of properties left by the Ameer of Bahawalpur post-1947, the Indian Independence Act, and subsequent legal and administrative actions regarding the estate.-----Issues:The legality of the distribution of the Shikargah land among the 23 legal heirs as per Notification No. SRO-436(I)2006.The adherence of the distribution process to the principles of justice, Sharia law, and previous Supreme Court judgments.The jurisdiction of the court in matters decided by the Federal Government under the Acceding State (Property) Order, 1961.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court, dismissed both writ petitions. The court found that the distribution of properties was conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the implementation committee, established legal precedents, and Sharia law. It was emphasized that the Federal Government had the ultimate authority to decide on matters related to the devolution and distribution of the Ameer of Bahawalpur's properties, as stipulated by the Acceding State (Property) Order, 1961. The court also noted that it lacked jurisdiction to question orders made by the Central Government under this order.----Citations/Precedents:Indian Independence Act, 1947Acceding State (Properties) Order, 1961Devolution and Distribution of Property (Ameer of Bahawalpur) Order, 1969Supreme Court judgment in "Govt. of Pakistan V. Brig. His Highness Nawab Muhammad Abbas Khan Abbasi and others" (PLD 1982 SC 367)Supreme Court judgment in "Brig. H.H. Nawab Muhammad Abbas Khan Abbasi, Ameer of Bahawalpur V. Govt. of Pakistan and others" (PLD 1984 SC 67)Supreme Court judgment in "Prince A. M. Abbasi and another V. Federal Government through Secretary and 24 others" (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 170)Lahore High Court judgment in "Brig. His Highness Nawab Muhammad Abbas Khan Abbasi, Ameer of Bahawalpur. V. Government of Pakistan, through the Joint Secretary, Ministry of States and Frontier Regions, Rawalpindi and 23 others" (PLD 1978 Lahore 1166)Supreme Court judgment in "Sahibzada Muhammad Usman Khan Abbasi, etc. V. Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary M/O KANA and SAFRON, Islamabad, etc." (2020)

Summary: Facts: The Registrar of the Supreme Court received a note reporting systematic deforestation and tree cutting at Fatima Jinnah Park, F-9, Islamabad, allegedly under the direction of the CDA. The Supreme Court's Committee, established under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, considered this matter significant enough to warrant a constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, citing the public importance and the potential infringement on fundamental rights, including access to public places and the right to life due to environmental degradation.Issue: Whether the systematic deforestation and tree cutting at Fatima Jinnah Park, directed by the CDA, infringes upon the fundamental rights of the citizens of Pakistan, necessitating intervention by the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.Holding: The Court found that the preconditions stipulated in Article 184(3) of the Constitution were met, indicating a significant matter impacting fundamental rights, warranting the Supreme Court's intervention.Order:Notices were issued to the CDA and the Government of Pakistan through the Ministry of Climate Change and Environmental Coordination, as well as the Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board.The CDA was ordered to submit a detailed report addressing specific inquiries related to the tree cutting and deforestation activities.The Court appointed joint commissioners from the Press Association of Supreme Court to document the affected areas within the park.Representation for the Public was appointed to assist the Court.An interim order was issued prohibiting the CDA from further tree cutting or deforestation activities until the next hearing.The case was scheduled to come up again on 4 March 2024.Rationale: The Court's intervention was based on the potential infringement of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and access to public places, due to the environmental degradation caused by deforestation. The Court also referenced previous notices taken under Article 184(3) regarding illegal activities in the same park, reinforcing the significance of the matter.

Summary: ''Detailed reasons for holding that Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution is not a self-executory provision and for overruling Sami Ullah Baloch v. Abdul Karim Nausherwani (PLD 2018 SC 405) with Justice Mansoor Ali Shah's opinion.'' ---- Issue:Does the lifetime disqualification for electoral candidacy under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution align with the Constitution itself, especially in light of Section 232(2) of the Elections Act 2017, which prescribes a maximum disqualification period of five years?

Summary: Facts:Beaconhouse School System challenged the refusal by the District Registering Authority (DRA), Okara, and the Commissioner, Sahiwal Division, to issue a School Registration Certificate/E-License for its Boys & Girls branches in Okara, which affected its affiliation with the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education (BISE) Sahiwal and its students' ability to participate in board examinations.--- Issue:Whether the refusal to issue a School Registration Certificate/E-License to Beaconhouse School System, Okara, was lawful, particularly in the context of the Punjab Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2014, and the absence of rules required under the Act.---- Holding:The Lahore High Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the DRA, Okara, to ensure the registration of Beaconhouse School System, provided other conditions of the Act were met. The Court also directed the Punjab Government to frame the necessary rules under the Act.--- Reasoning:Absence of Rules: The Court noted the absence of rules mandated under section 24(2) of the Punjab Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2014, particularly those related to the determination of disadvantaged children and maintenance of records by schools.-- Fundamental Right to Education: The Court emphasized the fundamental right to free and compulsory education for children between the ages of 5 to 16 years, as enshrined in Article 25-A of the Constitution, following the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment.-- Government's Obligation: The Court highlighted the government's failure to fulfill its legislative obligation to frame the necessary rules, even after a decade since the enactment of the Act, and its impact on the right to education of disadvantaged children.-- Compliance with the Act: The Court pointed out that compliance with section 13(b) of the Act, concerning the responsibilities of private schools to provide free education to a certain percentage of disadvantaged children, cannot be verified without the prescribed rules.--- Legal Principles:The fundamental right to education under Article 25-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.The obligations of private schools under the Punjab Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2014, particularly section 13 concerning the provision of free education to disadvantaged children.The government's duty to frame rules under section 24(2) of the Act for its effective implementation.--- Significance:This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in enforcing the fundamental right to education and holding the government accountable for its legislative obligations. It highlights the necessity of clear legal frameworks to ensure the provision of free and compulsory education to all children, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of timely rule-making by the government to prevent arbitrary and unjust administrative actions.