Summary: Background:Rozina Ahmed petitioned against the withdrawal of her employment as an ESE (Sci-Math) by respondent authorities, citing the incompatibility of her MCS Result Card with the cut-off date of an advertisement as the reason for termination. Her initial appointment in 2017 was challenged due to discrepancies in the dates and marks of her educational qualifications as per the Recruitment Policy 2016-2017. Despite previous legal interventions, her representations were dismissed, leading to the filing of Writ Petition No. 1287 of 2023.-----Issues:Whether the withdrawal of Rozina Ahmed's Letter of Agreement by the District Education Officer on the grounds of incompatible qualification was lawful.Whether the dismissal of Ahmed's representations by the Secretary Education (Schools), Punjab, adhered to legal and policy guidelines.The applicability of the principle of locus poenitentiae in Ahmed's case, in light of similar precedents.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court ruled in favor of Rozina Ahmed, allowing the writ petition and setting aside the impugned orders as illegal and unlawful. The court found that Ahmed had indeed qualified her MCS degree before the cut-off date and her Provisional Result Card was valid for application purposes. The discrepancies in dates and marks were attributed to the provisional nature of the initial result card and the final transcript. The court directed the respondent authorities to reinstate Ahmed in her position as ESE (Sci-Math).----Citations/Precedents:Mst.Basharat Jehan Versus Director General, Federal Government Education, FGEI (C/Q) Rawalpindi and others (2015 SCMR 1418): Highlighted the principle that a right once accrued cannot be taken away without due cause.Executive District Officer (Edu), Rawalpindi and others Versus Mst. Rizwan Kausar and 4 others (2011 SCMR 1581): Emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements before revoking employment rights.Collector of Customs and Central Excise Peshawar and 2 others Versus Abdul Waheed and 2 others (2004 SCMR 303): Reinforced the principle of locus poenitentiae, suggesting that a benefit once granted cannot be withdrawn arbitrarily.Muhammad Shoaib and 2 others Versus Government of N.W.F.P. through The Collector, D.I. Khan and others (2005 SCMR 85): Affirmed the protection of rights that have been duly granted and fulfilled.

Summary: [ Principle of locus poenitentiae] . . . withdrawal of advertisement of posts. . . Government or concerned authority is competent to withdraw or revoke before taking any decisive step. As no decisive step is taken pursuant to the advertisement, creating any right in favour of petitioner hence the respondents were competent to recall the earlier advertisement. Writ petition dismissed in limine.

Summary: Section(s) of law; Article 199 of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.1. The principle of locus poenitentiae has been fully discussed.2. Where an order bas been passed by a competent authority and in consequent thereof, the subject/employee has acted upon the same, then such order could not be rescinded and withdrawn.3. Where the order has been obtained on the basis of administering fraud with the departmental authority or due to any other misrepresentation, then such order even if passed by a competent authority, would be of no benefit for subject/employee and the same could be rescinded any time by the competent authority.4. Where the order is passed by any incompetent authority even when the same has not been obtained on the basis of any fraud or misrepresentation, then such order too could be withdrawn or set aside by the concerned competent authority.5. Whenever an order is passed by a competent authority and the same has been acted upon, then at least an opportunity of hearing has to be provided to the subject/employee, before its withdrawal.

Summary: Sections of law; Section 91, 92,93 CPC & Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. When the Advocate General grants permission for filing a suit under section 91 or 92 CPC and the suit is filed, he is then divested of the locus poenitentiae to withdraw the earlier granted sanction.

Summary: Seeking direction for commercialization of plot ---- Background: The petitioners claimed that their properties in Street No. 55, Sector G-9/4, Islamabad were commercialized based on a CDA Board decision dated February 13, 1995, and argued that they should not have to pay commercialization fees. The CDA later rescinded this decision on October 7, 1995. The petitioners challenged the CDA notices for non-conforming use of properties, seeking to validate the commercial status of their properties without additional fees or conditions. ----Issues: 1. Whether the decision of the CDA Board dated February 13, 1995, should be considered lawful and binding. 2. Whether the petitioners have any vested rights due to the February 13, 1995, decision. 3. The application of the doctrine of locus poenitentiae in this case. 4. The role of urban planning regulations and compliance with the Master Plan. ----Holding/Reasoning: Lawfulness of the Decision: The court held that the CDA Board’s decision dated February 13, 1995, was not lawful as it violated the provisions of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, and the Master Plan. The decision was subsequently rescinded correctly on October 7, 1995. ---Vested Rights: The court found that no vested rights were created for the petitioners based on the February 13, 1995, decision because it was rescinded before any rights could accrue. The Board's rescission was a correction of an erroneous decision. ----Doctrine of Locus Poenitentiae: The court concluded that the doctrine of locus poenitentiae did not apply because the February 13, 1995, decision was illegal and no decisive steps were taken by the petitioners under this decision before its rescission. ----Urban Planning Regulations: The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to urban planning regulations and the Master Plan. It highlighted that any changes in land use must be in conformity with the Master Plan and approved regulations, and the CDA’s actions must reflect this compliance. ----Conclusion: The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the CDA's decision to rescind the earlier commercialization decision. The court stressed the importance of following the Master Plan and urban development regulations, noting that the petitioners' properties remained residential according to the approved Master Plan. ----Citations/Precedents: Col. (R) Javed Agha v. Arshad Mahmud (2017 MLD 627) Government of the Punjab, Education Department vs. Muhammad Imran (2019 SCMR 643) Human Right Case No. 4668 of 2007 (PLD 2010 SC 759) Muhammad Suleman v. Abdul Ghani (PLD 1978 SC 190) Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited And others V. Said Rehman and others (2013 SCMR 642) Punjab Healthcare Commission V. Mushtaq Ahmed Ch. (PLD 2016 Lahore 237)

Summary: Writ Petition---Requirements of Sine qua non---principle of locus poeniteniae---appeal dismissed.---Background:The case involves two civil appeals (No. 754 and 755 of 2020) filed against an order issued by the Lahore High Court, which dismissed writ petitions (No. 206815 and 180175 of 2018). The appellants, Shakeel Ahmad Zaidi and others, were initially employed as Instructors in the Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority (TEVTA) and later absorbed into the Higher Education Department (HED) of Punjab. They received a special allowance meant for contract Lecturers appointed between 2002 and 2005. However, the Finance Department of Punjab discontinued this allowance and initiated recovery from the appellants' salaries.---Issues:Whether the recovery of the special allowance from the appellants' salaries is justified.Whether the principle of locus poenitentiae applies in this case.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the recovery of the special allowance from the appellants' salaries is justified. The appellants, being Instructors and not contract Lecturers, were not entitled to receive the allowance. Therefore, their claim of receiving it bona fide does not hold. The Court emphasized that the principle of locus poenitentiae does not apply because the payment was made under a mistaken order, which was not lawful. Hence, the recovery of the allowance from the appellants' salaries is upheld.---Citations/Precedents:Engineer Chief Branch through Minister of Defence, Rawalpindi v. Jalal-ud-Din (1992 SCMR 917): Application of the principle of locus poenitentiae was considered, emphasizing that once a government employee receives payment bona fide, it is not recoverable even if it was made due to a mistake by the government.Muhammad Feroz v. Deputy Director Officer Education (2005 SCMR 1490): Involving a case of erroneous salary increment received by a civil servant, it was held that even if the payment was received in good faith, it is subject to recovery if made under a mistake of law. The principle of locus poenitentiae does not apply to rectify mistakes of law.

Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution.(a) After conclusion of the contract, placing of supply order and part performance of the contract, the public authority had taken decisive steps divesting it from their locus poenitentiae.

Summary: The case revolves around the revocation of Return on Equity (ROE) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) determined by NEPRA for Attock Gen Limited's tariff application---- Attock Gen Limited, the petitioner, applied for Tariff Determination to the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) under the Regulation of Generation, Transmission, and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (NEPRA Act). The proceedings were conducted as per legal provisions, and NEPRA provided an Original Tariff Determination on 04.09.2006, including observations regarding Return on Equity (ROE) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR). The petitioner sought financial closure based on this determination. However, the petitioner also requested certain amendments, and NEPRA issued a corrigendum on 14.10.2006, specifying that Tariff Adjustment should be made based on actual drawdowns during the construction period at the time of the Commercial Operation Date (COD). The petitioner applied for six corrections in the Tariff Adjustment, and three were allowed, but for the rest, NEPRA advised the petitioner to file a review petition.The petitioner filed a motion for leave for review on 25.11.2009, and a decision was made on 24.05.2010, revising the parameters for Internal Rate of Return. Dissatisfied with the decision, the petitioner filed the present petition.The petitioner argued that once the Original Tariff Determination was made, NEPRA could not revoke it, citing principles like estoppel and locus poenitentiae. They referred to various legal cases in support of their arguments.On the other hand, NEPRA contended that the observations regarding ROE and IRR in the Original Tariff Determination were tentative, not final, and hence, no vested rights accrued to the petitioner. They also argued that the determination of ROE and IRR conflicted with the principles of the Government of Pakistan and Tariff Determination.Other respondents adopted NEPRA's arguments, and they also stated that contractual obligations should not be interfered with in a writ petition.The petitioner sought to distinguish the case law cited by the respondents.The Court heard the arguments from both sides and examined the documents. The core issue was the revocation of ROE and IRR in the Original Tariff Determination. The petitioner claimed that this revocation was barred by estoppel and locus poenitentiae, citing various legal precedents. However, the respondents argued that the order was not illegal, and thus, these principles did not apply.The Court ultimately ruled that the principles of locus poenitentiae and estoppel were not relevant in this case, as the order was not illegal. It also noted that NEPRA had the authority to review its orders, and the petitioner had been given an opportunity to present their case.As a result, the Court found the petitioner's arguments to be without merit and dismissed the petition.

Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution and section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.(a)Where the basic order is without jurisdiction, void, unlawful or obtained on fraud, the exception to exercise of powers of locus poenitentia,cannot be invoked.

Summary: Principle of locus poenitentiae is available to authorities who are competent to make order have power to undo it, but such order cannot be withdrawn or rescinded once it has taken legal effect and created certain rights in favour of any individual.