Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – ----O.VII, R.11---Rejection of plaint---Maintainability of suit---Cause of action---Locus standi---Appellant, having participated in the auction conducted by the Capital Development Authority (CDA), was declared the highest bidder for two commercial plots but failed to deposit 25% of the bid amount within the stipulated 24-hour period as required under the auction terms and conditions---CDA forfeited the token money and canceled the bid due to non-compliance with payment obligations---Appellant sought restoration of the bid and extension of time, which was considered and partially accepted by CDA, leading to the restoration of only one plot (No. 23)---CDA Board, in its official meetings, declined to restore the bid for plot No. 24, rejecting the appellant’s request---Trial court dismissed the suit for declaration, injunction, and recovery of interest, holding that the appellant had no vested right in the subject property as the bid was never finalized or confirmed by the competent authority---Held, a mere bid at an auction does not create a vested or contractual right unless confirmed by the competent authority, and failure to comply with the conditions results in automatic cancellation of the bid and forfeiture of the token amount---Appeal dismissed. ----Cited Cases: • Munshi Muhammad v. Faizanul Haq (1971 SCMR 533) • Babu Pervaiz Qureshi v. Settlement Commissioner Multan and Bahawalpur Divisions, Multan (1974 SCMR 337) • Meraj Din v. Noor Muhammad (1970 SCMR 542) (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) – ----S. 42---Declaration of rights---Pre-existing legal right---Appellant filed suit seeking a declaration that the CDA’s decision to deny her restoration of plot No. 24 was illegal and without lawful authority---Held, a suit for declaration is only maintainable where a pre-existing legal right is established, and the appellant had not acquired any enforceable right to the subject plot, as the bid was never confirmed---The rejection of a bid by the competent authority cannot be challenged unless a legal right already exists in favor of the bidder, which was absent in the present case---Held, courts cannot create new rights through declaratory decrees; only existing rights can be recognized and enforced. ----Cited Cases: • Director Military Lands and Cantonments Quetta Cantt. v. Aziz Ahmed (2023 SCMR 860) • Muhammad Jameel v. Abdul Ghafoor (2022 SCMR 348) (c) Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 – ----S. 49-E---Bar on legal proceedings against CDA decisions---Validity---Respondents argued that the suit was barred under Section 49-E of the CDA Ordinance, 1960, which precludes legal proceedings against CDA decisions in certain matters unless procedural irregularities or bad faith are established---Held, appellant failed to demonstrate any illegality, mala fide, or arbitrary exercise of power by CDA in rejecting her bid restoration request---Decision of CDA Board was upheld by the court as lawful and within jurisdiction. (d) Law of Auctions – ----Vesting of rights in successful bidders---Contractual obligations---Appellant contended that having participated in the auction and being declared the highest bidder, she had a right to acquire the property despite non-compliance with payment terms---Held, a highest bid at an auction does not automatically confer ownership rights; rather, it is subject to acceptance by the auctioning authority, and failure to meet stipulated conditions results in cancellation without any vested rights accruing to the bidder---Mere participation in an auction does not give rise to a cause of action unless the bid is formally accepted by the competent authority. (e) Interest and Damages – ----Claim for interest at the rate of 11.07% on Rs. 48 million allegedly utilized by CDA---Rejection of claim---Appellant sought interest on the amount paid as token money, arguing that CDA unlawfully retained and utilized it---Held, token money was forfeited as per auction terms due to the appellant’s failure to meet financial obligations, and no legal basis existed for the recovery of interest on an amount forfeited due to contractual default---Claim for interest rejected. ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 9, 10-A & 15 Right to liberty and international travel—Placement of a citizen’s name on the Passport Control List (PCL) without due process—Scope—Petitioner’s name was placed on the PCL, preventing him from traveling to Oman despite possessing a valid passport and work visa—No show cause notice was issued nor was the petitioner provided an opportunity to be heard—Held, that restricting a citizen’s right to liberty and international travel under Articles 9 and 15 of the Constitution must be exercised strictly in accordance with law—Placement of name on the PCL without affording due process contravened Article 10-A of the Constitution—Authority to impose restrictions on travel must be preceded by a reasoned order under section 8 of the Passport Act, 1974—Placing a citizen’s name on the PCL arbitrarily was declared to be without lawful authority. ----Cited Cases: • Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan (2024 MLD 1020) • PML(N) v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 642) • Syed Zulfiqar Abbas v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2019 Islamabad 316) • Sheikh Shan Ilahi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2023 Lahore 359) • Tabish Badar v. Ministry of Interior (2023 CLC 1457) (b) Passport Act, 1974: ----S. 8 & 11— Placement of name on Passport Control List (PCL) without prior determination of passport inactivation, impoundment, or cancellation—Validity—Power to restrict a citizen’s travel vests in the Federal Government, which must issue a reasoned order before taking such action—Held, that under section 8 of the Passport Act, no penal action may be taken against a citizen without a reasoned order issued by the Secretary to the Federal Government or an authorized officer—No such order was placed on record in the present case—Placement of a name on the PCL without fulfilling statutory prerequisites rendered the action ultra vires. (c) Passport Rules, 2021: ----Rr. 21, 22 & 23— Inactivation, impoundment, confiscation, or cancellation of a passport—Procedural safeguards—Respondents cited Rules 21 and 22 as grounds for placing the petitioner on the PCL—Held, that impounding or inactivating a passport constitutes a penal action requiring prior notice and opportunity to be heard—Under Rule 23(4), only a Head of Pakistan Mission abroad may impound a passport of a citizen residing abroad, which must then be forwarded to the Director General or Additional Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for further action—No evidence was presented showing compliance with these procedural requirements—Placement of petitioner’s name on the PCL was set aside. (d) Administrative Authority—Due Process: ----Exercise of discretion—Placement of a citizen’s name on the PCL without application of mind—Legality—Assistant Director of the Directorate of Immigration and Passport placed the petitioner’s name on the PCL without lawful delegation of authority—Held, that discretionary powers under the Passport Act must be exercised by the Federal Government or an authorized officer through a reasoned order—Mechanical placement of names on the PCL without determining relevant grounds under Rule 23(6) is a colorable exercise of power and is unsustainable in law. (e) Disposition: Writ petition allowed—Placement of the petitioner’s name on the Passport Control List (PCL) was declared illegal for being in violation of section 8 of the Passport Act, 1974, and Articles 9, 10-A, and 15 of the Constitution—Respondents were directed to remove the petitioner’s name from the PCL forthwith and ensure no obstruction to his travel.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O. XXXVII, R. 2, 7 & O. VIII, R. 3, 4, 10—Summary suit—Failure to file written statement—Effect—Procedure after grant of leave to defend—Defendant, after obtaining leave to defend in a summary suit, failed to submit a written statement despite repeated directions—Trial Court proceeded ex-parte and decreed the suit—Appeal filed contending that leave application should have been treated as a written statement—Maintainability—Scope—Held, under O. XXXVII, R. 2(2), CPC, failure to obtain leave results in the allegations of the plaint being deemed admitted, while R. 7 provides that once leave is granted, the procedure of an ordinary suit applies—Under O. VIII, R. 10, CPC, if a defendant fails to file a written statement within the time fixed, the court may pronounce judgment or make such order as it deems fit—Defendant repeatedly sought adjournments for filing a written statement but failed to do so even after being granted last opportunities and imposition of costs—Trial Court was justified in proceeding ex-parte—Appeal dismissed. ----Cited Cases: Haji Abdul Wahid v. Hoechst Pakistan Ltd. (1993 CLC 1291) Muhammad Ali Khalid v. Muhammad Talha (2024 CLC 1184) Sahibzada Azhar Saleem v. Muhammad Hanif (2002 MLD 696) Irfan Fazal v. Zahid Iqbal (2004 CLC 384) Mst. Hakumat Bibi v. Imam Din (PLD 1987 SC 22) Haji Muhammad Siddique v. Rana Muhammad Sarwar (2003 CLD 1003) (b) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881): ----S. 118—Dishonour of cheque—Presumption of correctness—Plaintiff filed a summary suit for recovery of Rs. 1,620,000/- based on a cheque issued by the defendant—Cheque was dishonoured upon presentation—Defendant failed to raise any plausible defense and defaulted in submitting a written statement—Held, S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, provides a statutory presumption that a negotiable instrument is issued for consideration—Defendant did not deny issuing the cheque and failed to rebut the presumption—Trial Court rightly decreed the suit based on the available evidence—Appeal dismissed. ----Cited Cases: Haji Muhammad Siddique v. Rana Muhammad Sarwar (2003 CLD 1003) (c) Administration of Justice: ----Duty of courts to ensure expeditious disposal—Defendant’s conduct showed an attempt to delay proceedings—Repeated adjournments sought without just cause—Litigation should not be used as a tool to obstruct or delay execution of lawful decrees—Courts must exercise discretion under O. VIII, R. 10, CPC, to prevent abuse of process—Appeal filed merely to delay execution, thus dismissed. (d) Civil Appeal—Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction: ----Appeal against ex-parte decree—Scope of interference—Appellate Court does not interfere where procedural lapses of appellant are self-inflicted—Defendant was granted ample opportunity to defend but failed to comply with court directions—No illegality or misreading of evidence found in the Trial Court’s decree—Appeal dismissed. ---Disposition: Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Constitutional Jurisdiction— ----Art. 199—Interpretation of vires of law—Jurisdiction of administrative authorities—Scope—The Appellant challenged the vires of Section 31(A) of the Customs Act, 1969 and Sections 6(1) and 6(1)(A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 before the High Court—Learned Single Judge in Chamber, instead of deciding the constitutional question, referred the matter to the Collector of Customs (Respondents No.4 & 5)—Held, administrative authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the vires of a statute, which is a core function of superior courts under Article 199 of the Constitution—Reliance placed on Abdul Majeed Khan v. Ms. Maheen Begum (2014 SCMR 1524) and Muhammad Ayub v. Member (Judicial-III), BOR Punjab (2021 MLD 2110)—Impugned order set aside, and the constitutional petition restored for decision afresh by the learned Single Judge. ----Cited Cases: • Abdul Majeed Khan v. Ms. Maheen Begum (2014 SCMR 1524) • Muhammad Ayub v. Member (Judicial-III), BOR Punjab (2021 MLD 2110) • PESCO v. Ishfaq Khan (2021 SCMR 637) (b) Constitutional Interpretation—Judicial Review— ----Scope of High Court’s powers—Held, the power to declare a legislative enactment void must be exercised with great caution—Superior courts are bound to uphold, preserve, and protect the Constitution, but must exercise judicial restraint in striking down legislation—Court reaffirmed that (i) there is a presumption in favor of constitutionality, (ii) an enactment must not be declared void unless its invalidity is beyond reasonable doubt, and (iii) where possible, courts should adopt an interpretation that upholds the validity of the law—Reliance placed on Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana (2015 SCMR 1739). ----Cited Cases: • Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana (2015 SCMR 1739) • Dr. Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 265) • Watan Party v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2006 SC 697) • Pakistan Lawyers Forum v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2005 SC 719) • Engineer Iqbal Zafar Jhagra v. Federation of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 1337) (c) Administrative Law—Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities— ----Held, Customs and Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate on constitutional matters or determine the vires of statutory provisions—Any order issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction is deemed null and void—Superstructure based on such an order automatically collapses—Court reaffirmed that only superior courts have the jurisdiction to interpret constitutional and statutory validity—Reliance placed on PESCO v. Ishfaq Khan (2021 SCMR 637). ----Disposition: Appeal accepted—Impugned order set aside—Writ Petition No.2132 of 2014 restored for fresh adjudication by the learned Single Judge in accordance with law—Any consequential orders issued in compliance with the impugned order held to have no legal effect.

Summary: Note by Justice Ayesha A Malik ---- (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 191A(4), 175, & Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 Jurisdictional bar on Bench under Twenty-sixth Constitutional Amendment—Judicial sanctity and administrative orders—Judicial order dated 16.01.2025 fixed cases before a three-member Bench, whereupon an objection was raised regarding the jurisdictional competence of the Bench not being a Constitutional Bench as required under the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution. The Court ordered for reconstitution of the Bench by the Committee constituted under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023. However, the Committee, instead of reconstituting the Bench, withdrew the cases and referred them to the Constitutional Bench Committee established under Art. 191A(4) of the Constitution. Both Committees disregarded the judicial order and issued administrative orders fixing the cases before the Constitutional Bench. (b) Independence of judiciary and sanctity of judicial orders Judicial orders vs. administrative orders—Judicial orders are authoritative pronouncements representing the authority and independence of the judiciary—Administrative orders cannot override judicial directives, which must be respected and challenged only through judicial proceedings. Disregard of judicial orders through administrative mechanisms undermines judicial independence and weakens judicial authority. Judges are bound to uphold the distinction between judicial and administrative orders and ensure compliance with judicial directives. Cited Cases: • Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 161; 1998 SCMR 130) • Human Rights Case No.14959-K of 2018 (PLD 2019 SC 183) Disposition: The Judge declined to hear the cases to preserve the sanctity of the judicial order dated 16.01.2025 and upheld the principle that judicial orders cannot be negated or overridden by administrative actions.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 190, 191A, 5, 176, & 185(3); Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court regarding withdrawal of cases by Committees and reconstitution of Benches—Effect of judicial orders—Committees constituted under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 and Article 191A of the Constitution were found to lack authority to withdraw part-heard cases where jurisdiction had been assumed by a regular Bench—Supreme Court held that such withdrawal undermines judicial independence and the sanctity of judicial proceedings—Judicial orders cannot be undone through administrative decisions, even by Committees constituted under law—Administrative orders attempting to bypass judicial authority were declared unlawful—Reconstitution or withdrawal of part-heard cases is a judicial function, not an administrative one. (b) Contempt of Court ----Sections 17(3) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003—Explanation of non-compliance with court orders—Failure to comply with court orders regarding the fixation of cases—Court accepted the explanation provided by the Additional Registrar (Judicial), holding that there was no deliberate or mala fide intent to disobey judicial orders—Held, no evidence of contumacy or malice was found—Show-cause notice for contempt of court discharged. (c) Judiciary—Independence and Integrity ----Practice of hearing part-heard cases—Judicial independence—Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that once a Bench has assumed jurisdiction and partly heard a case, it cannot be withdrawn or reassigned without judicial justification—Judicial propriety mandates continuity of Bench unless recusal, conflict of interest, or other valid reasons are present—Administrative interference in judicial proceedings is inconsistent with the principle of independence of the judiciary. (d) Committees under Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 ----Authority of Committees—Administrative orders—Committees under the Act and Article 191A of the Constitution were found to have exceeded their jurisdiction by passing administrative orders contravening judicial orders—Such orders were declared without lawful authority and ineffective—Matter referred to the Full Court for authoritative resolution. ----- Cited Cases: Pir Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan (PLD 1995 SC 66) Fazlul Quader Chowdhry v. Abdul Haque (PLD 1963 SC 486) Marbury v. Madison (5 US 137 [1803]) Human Rights Case No.14959-K of 2018 (PLD 2019 SC 183) Contempt proceedings against Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani (PLD 2012 SC 553) Raja Amer v. Federation of Pakistan (PLJ 2024 SC 114). ------ Disposition: Matter regarding contempt of court by Committees referred to the Full Court for collective deliberation—Additional Registrar’s explanation accepted—Show-cause notice discharged—Main case to be fixed before the original Bench in February 2025.

Summary: (a) Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991)--- ----S.5---Judicial Officers’ Protection Act (XVIII of 1850), S. 1---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 75---Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, R.3---Service appeal---Judicial Officer---Charge of misconduct---Granting of post arrest bail on the basis of fake report of Chemical Examiner in deviation of prescribed procedure for Judicial Officers---Effect---Imposition of penalty of dismissal from service---Protection against inadvertent mistakes in judicial acts/order---Scope---Contention of the appellant was that no penalty could be imposed upon him for the reasons that he had been exonerated by the Hearing Officer and being judicial officer he was constitutionally and legally protected for judicially committed inadvertent mistake---Validity---Appellant cross-examined the Investigating Officer (I.O) during the inquiry and suggestions put by him to the I.O. had established that the appellant was hand in glove with the accused of the case---Appellant had privately been briefed by the said accused---Findings of the Hearing Officer qua exoneration of the appellant rest the premises that fake report was placed on the record by the I.O. and as such, there was no fault on the part of the appellant but the said findings were not supported by the record, as well as by the proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer because evidence/documents brought on the record during the inquiry had not been considered and properly appreciated by the Hearing Officer, thus, the Authority imposed major penalty of dismissal from service upon the appellant---Three elements had conjoined i.e. the appellant passed a judicial order in deviation of prescribed procedure in the Circular and express mandate of CNSA; the appellant passed judicial order with mala fide intent for extraneous considerations which was proved on record in terms that the appellant was in close contact with the accused persons, who were beneficiary of bail granting order and the appellant had acquired a general reputation of being corrupt---Such elements taken together proved the charge against the appellant and swayed the authority to impose the major penalty of dismissal from service upon him---Principle of according protection to judicial orders is well entrenched in our jurisprudence provided they are passed in good faith without an element of mala fide, however, there is no concept of complete and absolute immunity if extraneous considerations are vividly established---Service appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Government of Sindh and others v. Saiful Haq Hashmi and others 1993 SCMR 956; Arz Muhammad Umrani, Asstt. Political Agent, Dera Bugti v. Atta Muhammad and another 1993 SCMR 633; Lahore High Court, Lahore through its Registrar v. K.M. Sohel 2001 PLC (C.S.) 1253 and Mir Hassan Kalhoro v. Muhammad Chuttal alias Imran and another PLD 2022 Sindh 165 rel. (b) Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991)--- ----S. 5---Judicial Officer---Misconduct---General reputation of being corrupt---Imposition of penalty of dismissal from service---Principle where general reputation of corruption is attributed to an officer, the superior courts have leaned in favour of imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement---Exception created to such principle---Scope---Such principle is based on the rationale that in order to maintain honesty and integrity among service personnel, improve efficiency in administration of justice and restore public confidence in State institutions, officers of doubtful integrity or suspected of corruption can be compulsorily retired where sufficient evidence is not available to dismiss or remove them from service after considering the employee’s length of service, the nature of offence and the context surrounding misconduct---Charge had been proved against the appellant, which swayed the authority to impose the major penalty of dismissal from service upon him---Service appeal of the judicial officer was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Afzal Zahid, Ex-Additional District and Sessions Judge v. Lahore High Court, Lahore through its Registrar 2025 PLC (C.S.) 669 rel. Appellant in person. Ahtisham ud Din Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th January, 2025.

Summary: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)--- ----Art. 44---Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S. 18---Land acquisition, matter of---Remedy before Referee Court, availability of---Writ petition---Maintainability---Petitioner, land-owner whose land was acquired filed writ petition claiming that compensation for constructed building was not granted to him---Validity---After the award, the proper course for the petitioner was to apply to the Reference Court that he had not been paid compensation of the built up property which stance was taken before the Reference Judge but was disallowed, hence, same relief could not be claimed through a writ petition---Under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,any person who has not accepted award may by written application to the Collector require that matter be referred for determination by the Court regarding measurement of the land, amount of the compensation awarded, the person to whom it was payable or apportionment of compensation---The amount of compensation included the factor that if the built up structure was not assessed the interested person might file a reference for compensation of the built up property, as separate award of built up property was not required to be issued---As the petitioner at the time of award had not filed a reference for assessment of built up property and payment of its compensation, thus the stance taken by the respondents that the petitioner had raised construction after the award appeared to be attracted, and a person who raised construction after the award could not claim compensation of the said construction---Since an alternate remedy in shape of reference before the Reference Judge for payment of compensation of built up property was available to the petitioner, which he availed, thus, the writ petition in presence of alternate remedy was not maintainable---Writ petition, being merit-less, was dismissed. Sagheer Javaid for Petitioner. Legal Advisor of Sports Department for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th January, 2025. VERDICT: i. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. ii. The Court found that alternate remedy was available to the petitioner which was availed but failed, thus the instant writ petition is not sustainable.

Summary: Service Appeal of the Appellant was dismissed by upholding the penalty of dismissal from service imposed by the Authority since three elements i.e. the Appellant passed a judicial Order in deviation of prescribed procedure in the Circular and express mandate of CNSA; the Appellant passed judicial Order with mala fide intent for extraneous considerations which was proved on record in terms that the Appellant was in close contact with the accused persons who were beneficiary of bail granting Order; and the Appellant had acquired a general reputation of being corrupt; were established on record justifying the penalty of dismissal from service.

Summary: Service Appeal of the Appellant was dismissed by upholding the penalty of dismissal from service imposed by the Authority since three elements i.e. the Appellant passed a judicial Order in deviation of prescribed procedure in the Circular and express mandate of CNSA; the Appellant passed judicial Order with mala fide intent for extraneous considerations which was proved on record in terms that the Appellant was in close contact with the accused persons who were beneficiary of bail granting Order; and the Appellant had acquired a general reputation of being corrupt; were established on record justifying the penalty of dismissal from service. 751Civil Revision 17850/19 Ch. Jang Sher Vs Amanat Ali Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain 23- 01- 2025 2025 LHC