Summary: Summary pending

Summary: a) Civil Service—Recruitment and Eligibility ----AJ&K Public Service Commission—Elementary & Secondary Education (Teaching Cadre Service) Rules, 2016—Qualification criteria—Scope of judicial review. Appellant, holding M.A. (Education), M.A. (Statistics) and M.Ed., applied for the post of Secondary School Teacher (Female), BS-16, under the Public Service Commission (PSC). Her candidature was rejected on the ground that M.Sc. (Statistics) did not fall within the prescribed “relevant subjects” under the Rules. The High Court dismissed her writ petition. Held, that while the question whether M.Sc. (Statistics) qualifies as a “social science” may arise in another case, the Rules expressly recognize M.Ed. and Master’s Degree in Education as acceptable alternatives for eligibility. Since the appellant possessed a valid M.Ed. degree issued by a Higher Education Commission (HEC)-recognized university, she was otherwise qualified for the post. The PSC was, therefore, directed to evaluate her eligibility comprehensively, considering all qualifications and to proceed with the selection process accordingly. (b) Pleadings—Objection not raised in written statement—Effect ----AJ&K Public Service Commission—Failure to plead objection at trial—Consequences. PSC’s later contention that appellant had not attached her M.Ed. degree at the time of submission was not tenable as no such objection had been specifically raised in its written statement before the High Court. Objection not pleaded at the proper stage cannot subsequently be entertained or relied upon to defeat a valid claim. (c) Intervention—Impleadment of third parties ----Civil Procedure—Application for impleadment—Maintainability. Intervener objected only to the relevancy of the appellant’s M.Sc. (Statistics) degree and raised no dispute regarding her other qualifications. Since the Court refrained from deciding the “Statistics degree” question and confined relief to M.Ed. qualification, impleadment was found unnecessary; application dismissed. Disposition: Appeal accepted; judgment of the High Court set aside; Public Service Commission directed to consider appellant for appointment if otherwise qualified under the Rules. Cited Provisions: Azad Jammu & Kashmir Elementary and Secondary Education Department (Teaching Cadre Service) Rules, 2016. Cited Authority: Higher Education Commission Notification dated 03-02-2015 (regarding classification of Social Sciences).

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ---Arts. 17(2), 51(6)(d) & (e), 63, 65, 106(3)(c), 184(3), 185(3), 224(6); Elections Act, 2017, Ss. 66, 67, 104 & Election Rules, 2017 Allocation of reserved seats for women and non-Muslims—Scope—Constitutional validity of Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) Order dated 01.03.2024 and its notifications declaring returned candidates on reserved seats—Maintainability—Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), not having contested the General Elections 2024 or submitted any priority list for reserved seats, claimed entitlement to such seats based on independent candidates joining it post-election—Held, SIC did not fulfil constitutional or legal prerequisites to claim allocation of reserved seats under proportional representation system; did not contest elections or secure any general seat—ECP’s order and relevant notifications, insofar as they excluded PTI-affiliated candidates from the seat count, were declared ultra vires the Constitution and set aside—Supreme Court by majority held that PTI remained a political party under the law, and candidates declaring PTI affiliation in their nomination forms and supported by party certificates were to be treated as PTI members for purposes of seat allocation—Denial of election symbol did not affect right of a political party to field candidates or participate in elections—PTI held entitled to proportionate allocation of reserved seats based on its actual electoral success—Constitutional obligation imposed on ECP to recalculate and notify reserved seats for PTI accordingly—Petitions of SIC dismissed. Cited Cases: • Workers' Party Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 681 • Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 416 (b) Constitutional Law: ----Arts. 51(6)(d) & (e), 106(3)(c), 63-A, 226 Interpretation of proportional representation—Returned candidates declared independent by ECP despite nomination as PTI members—Held, candidates who submitted nomination papers declaring PTI affiliation and did not contradict said declaration prior to withdrawal deadline must be treated as PTI members—Declaration by ECP that such candidates were independent held without lawful authority—Court declared that under constitutional provisions, party-list based allocation of reserved seats must reflect the true will of electorate and should not be frustrated by technicalities—Failure of ECP to recognize valid PTI candidatures undermined representational justice and electoral integrity. (c) Representation and Electoral Rights: ----Elections Act, 2017, Ss. 66, 67, 104; Election Rules, 2017 Submission of party lists and affidavits—ECP required to apply statutory provisions in a manner giving full effect to constitutional rights—Court directed ECP to issue notice to 41 other returned candidates (who were declared independent but declared PTI affiliation in part) to file notarized statements confirming party affiliation, with PTI granted opportunity to confirm such claims—Held, such mechanism would determine true number of general seats secured by PTI, entitling it to reserved seats accordingly—Court ordered timely publication of list and compliance report by ECP—Reserved seats not to remain vacant under Article 224(6), and must be filled to preserve parliamentary representativeness. (d) Constitutional Jurisdiction and Limitation: ----Arts. 184(3), 185(3), 175 Scope of Supreme Court’s power in electoral matters—PTI was not a party to the original proceedings before the ECP or High Court—Minority view emphasized that majority judgment extended beyond Court’s constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 185(3)—Concerns raised that judicial relief was granted to a non-party, creating enforceable rights in absence of lis—Joined candidates were not heard, and allocation affected without affording audi alteram partem—Held (minority), that such judicial overreach may result in constitutional violations and consequences for oath-bound office holders—Majority nevertheless exercised jurisdiction under Art. 184(3) to enforce fundamental representational rights.

Summary: (a) Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940): ----Secs. 8, 9, 15, 17 & 26-A Scope and Power of Court in Making an Arbitration Award Rule of Court—Objections to Award—Jurisdiction of Court under Sections 17 & 26-A—Duty of Court to Examine Validity of Award Before Making it Rule of Court—Remand for Fresh Decision with Evidence. The dispute arose from a contract awarded to the contractor for constructing a bridge, leading to arbitration under Sections 8 and 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Civil Judge rejected objections to the arbitrators' award but modified it regarding the adjustment of mobilization advance under Section 15 of the Act. The appellate court observed that the trial court erred in disposing of objections casually, without framing proper issues or recording evidence, and merely assuming that it could not review the reasoning or evidentiary basis of the award. Under Section 17 of the Act, the court is not a mere post office to mechanically endorse an award but is obligated to ensure that the award is free from patent illegality or misconduct. Section 26-A mandates arbitrators to state reasons in sufficient detail for their conclusions, enabling the court to evaluate the legal soundness of the award. Failure to do so justifies remission or setting aside of the award. The appellate court held that the trial court had failed in its duty and remanded the case for a fresh decision after framing proper issues, recording evidence, and applying the relevant legal principles. ----Cited Cases: A. Qutubuddin Khan v. Chec Millwala Dredging Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (2014 SCMR 1268) M/s. Awan Industries Ltd. v. The Executive Engineer, Lined Channel Division (1992 SCMR 65) Karachi Dock Labour Board v. Messers Quality Builders Ltd. (PLD 2016 SC 121) Karachi Metropolitan Corporation v. Associated Constructors Ltd. (1984 CLC 1077) Umer Din through L.Rs. v. Mst. Shakeela Bibi and others (2009 SCMR 29) Allah Din & Company v. Trading Corporation of Pakistan (2006 SCMR 614) The Director Industries And Mineral Development v. Dada Bhoyhormusjee & Sons (1990 MLD 301) -----Disposition: Appeal accepted; impugned order set aside; case remanded to the Civil Judge for fresh decision after framing issues, recording evidence, and considering the relevant legal principles.

Summary: (a) Jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC): Offenses under Section 376(2) PPC and Section 506-B PPC, even if heinous, do not fall under the definition of terrorism as prescribed in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. As the alleged offense was not linked to acts of terrorism or abduction for ransom, the ATC lacked jurisdiction to try the case. (b) Transfer of Jurisdiction under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021: With the promulgation of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, cases involving offenses listed under Schedule-II of the Act, such as Section 376 PPC, are to be exclusively tried by Special Courts established under the Act. Any such cases pending before other courts, including ATCs, must be transferred to the relevant Special Court. (c) Notification of Special Courts under the Anti-Rape Act, 2021: The Federal Government, via Notification No. S.R.O. 2029(I)/2022, designated Special Courts for trying scheduled offenses under the Act. The case should have been transferred to the Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Malir, which was the designated Special Court with jurisdiction over the matter. (d) Applicability of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018: The appellants argued for trial under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. However, all Anti-Terrorism Courts in Sindh were designated as Juvenile Courts under Notification No. SOJI/9-2/2018. Thus, juvenile offenders could be tried in ATCs for offenses within their jurisdiction. (e) Distinction Between Heinous Offenses and Terrorism: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has clarified that not all heinous offenses automatically qualify as terrorism. Offenses that do not meet the criteria of terrorism, even if serious, are not triable by ATCs unless specified in the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. (f) Procedural Irregularity in Trial by ATC: The ATC's continuation of trial and conviction post-notification of Special Courts under the Anti-Rape Act, 2021, was deemed procedurally improper. The trial should have been transferred upon notification of jurisdiction under the Act. (g) Setting Aside of Conviction and Sentence: The appellants' conviction and sentence by the ATC were set aside due to lack of jurisdiction. The case was ordered to be transferred to the relevant Special Court for trial. (h) Bail Applications: The appellants, who were on bail prior to the ATC's judgment, were granted the right to file bail applications before the transferee Special Court, which must decide them on merit. -----Disposition The appeal was allowed. The judgment and sentence passed by the ATC were set aside, and the case was directed to the Special Court notified under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, for trial in accordance with the law.

Summary: FIR Quashed --- In Writ Petition No. 9024/2021, Dr. Iqrar Ahmad Khan and Ch. Muhammad Hussain (petitioners) sought the quashing of FIR No. 41/2020, which was registered under Sections 409, 468, 471, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (PCA). The petitioners argued that the FIR was filed with malafide intentions and ulterior motives. Dr. Iqrar Ahmad Khan served as Vice Chancellor of the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad (UAF) for two terms during which the university saw significant growth. After his tenure, the position was re-advertised, and despite being the top candidate on merit, Dr. Iqrar was not reappointed. Instead, respondent No. 5, who was lower on the merit list, was appointed, leading to allegations that the FIR was intended to tarnish Dr. Iqrar's image and influence ongoing judicial proceedings. ----Issues: Malafide Intentions: Whether the FIR was filed with malicious intent to tarnish the petitioners' reputations and disrupt judicial proceedings. Jurisdiction of ACE: Whether the Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE) had the jurisdiction to investigate allegations that had already been investigated and closed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). Legality of Actions: Whether the actions of the Vice Chancellor in making appointments and receiving honorarium were lawful. Double Jeopardy: Whether the FIR and subsequent investigations constituted double jeopardy under Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Malafide Intentions: The court found that the FIR was filed with malafide intentions by respondent No. 5. The timing and circumstances of the FIR indicated an ulterior motive to tarnish Dr. Iqrar's reputation and influence the judicial proceedings regarding the Vice Chancellor's appointment. The court referred to several precedents where investigations launched with malafide intentions were subject to judicial correction: Shahnaz Begum vs. Hon’ble Judge of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan (PLD 1971 SC 677) Anwar Ahmad Khan vs. The State (1996 SCMR 24) Raja Rustam Ali Khan vs. Muhammad Hanif (1997 SCMR 2008) Muhammad Irshad Khan vs. Chairman, National Accountability Bureau and 2 others (2007 P Cr. LJ 1957) The Federation of Pakistan vs. Saeed Ahmad Khan (PLD 1974 SC 151) F.I.A. vs. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others (PLD 2023 SC 265) ----Jurisdiction of ACE: The court held that the ACE did not have the jurisdiction to reinvestigate matters that had already been investigated and closed by NAB, according to Section 18(d) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The NAB had exclusive jurisdiction over such matters, and once it assumed jurisdiction, no other agency could investigate the same subject matter unless directed by the Chairman NAB or an authorized officer. The allegations against the petitioners were already investigated by NAB, which recommended the closure of the inquiry. Therefore, the ACE's reinvestigation was in clear contravention of Section 18(d). ----Legality of Actions: Appointments: The court examined the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad Act, 1973, which grants the Vice Chancellor the authority to make temporary appointments for up to six months and to re-appropriate funds within the approved budget. The investigation revealed that the appointments made by Dr. Iqrar were within the legal framework and did not deviate from the proper procedures. The court found no evidence of irregular appointments or misuse of authority. Honorarium: The court distinguished between 'honorarium' and 'perks and privileges', noting that an honorarium is a voluntary payment for services rendered and not a benefit conferred by the position. The honorarium received by Dr. Iqrar was within the university's long-standing practice and was sanctioned by the Syndicate and Senate, which were headed by the Chancellor. The court found no illegality in receiving the honorarium. ----Double Salary: The investigation showed that Dr. Iqrar did not receive double salary while serving as both Vice Chancellor and Project Director of the U.S.-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Agriculture and Food Security. The salary transactions were directly handled by the U.S. Embassy, and Dr. Iqrar received severance pay from the USAID project after his tenure as Vice Chancellor ended. ----Double Jeopardy: The court held that the FIR and investigations by ACE constituted double jeopardy, which is barred under Article 13(a) of the Constitution. The petitioners had already been cleared by NAB and further investigation on the same allegations was unlawful. ----Citations/Precedents: Shahnaz Begum vs. Hon’ble Judge of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan (PLD 1971 SC 677) Anwar Ahmad Khan vs. The State (1996 SCMR 24) Raja Rustam Ali Khan vs. Muhammad Hanif (1997 SCMR 2008) Muhammad Irshad Khan vs. Chairman, National Accountability Bureau and 2 others (2007 P Cr. LJ 1957) The Federation of Pakistan vs. Saeed Ahmad Khan (PLD 1974 SC 151) F.I.A. vs. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others (PLD 2023 SC 265) Mirza Muhammad Tufail vs. District Returning Officer and others (PLD 2007 SC 16) Karamat Hussain vs. Muhammad Zaman and others (PLD 1987 SC 139) The State vs. Asif Ali Zardari and another (1994 SCMR 798) Miraj Khan vs. Gul Ahmed and 3 others (2000 SCMR 122) Maqbool Rehman vs. The State and others (2002 SCMR 1076) Muhammad Aslam (Amir Aslam) vs. District Police Officer, Rawalpindi and others (2009 SCMR 141) ---Outcome: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed FIR No. 41/2020, concluding that the proceedings against the petitioners were initiated with malafide intentions and lacked jurisdiction. The continuation of such proceedings would be a futile exercise and an unjustified harassment of the petitioners. The court's decision reaffirmed the principle that investigations launched with malafide intentions or without jurisdiction are subject to judicial correction to ensure justice and fair play.

Summary: Challenging the impugned notice U/S 4.10.1 of the lease agreement of NHA regarding cancellation of lease agreement.

Summary: Background: This case involves a civil revision petition filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge-V, East Islamabad. The dispute centers on the sale of a plot of land and the application of arbitration clauses related to the transaction. The first purchaser sold the land to the second purchaser, and both parties agreed to arbitrate disputes arising from the agreement. The first purchaser later filed a civil suit for specific performance, which was stayed by the court pending the outcome of arbitration. The first purchaser challenged the stay in this revision petition, arguing that there was no arbitration clause in the agreement. -----Issues: 1- Whether the absence of an explicit arbitration clause in the agreement dated 02.08.2003 invalidates the stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. ----2- Whether the court can stay proceedings when arbitration has already commenced and the award is pending. ----3- Whether the appellate court's decision to stay the civil suit pending arbitration was lawful. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Islamabad High Court upheld the appellate court’s decision, stating that the absence of an explicit arbitration clause in the agreement did not bar the stay of the proceedings. The court reasoned that the parties had mutually agreed to arbitrate the dispute and had even participated in arbitration proceedings, where an award had been rendered. The court emphasized that once parties have opted for arbitration, they should await the final decision of the arbitration tribunal. Thus, the civil revision petition was dismissed, and the parties were directed to proceed with the arbitration outcome. -----Citations/Precedents: Farid Virani v. Feroz Virani (PLD 2013 Sindh 386) – Emphasized the objective of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to prevent litigation when arbitration agreements exist. Mrs. Rubby Hameedullah & others v. Dr. Arif & others (2010 YLR 3331) – Clarified that when a party brings a suit ignoring an arbitration agreement, the defendant's remedy is to request a stay under Section 34. Sqn. Ldr. (R.) Khurram Zaman v. Mrs. Afia Zafar & others (2008 CLD 662) – Highlighted the right of a party to stay legal proceedings and proceed with arbitration as agreed. Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume II – Defined arbitration as the resolution of disputes through an arbitrator outside of court proceedings.

Summary: Background: This case pertains to a civil revision petition filed against a judgment from a lower appellate court. The petition challenged the decision that allowed the stay of a civil suit concerning the sale and transfer of land, pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings. The case involves two agreements to sell a land plot and subsequent disputes between a first purchaser and a second purchaser. The initial dispute arose over the allotment and sale of a plot of land by the original landowners, represented by an attorney. After multiple transactions and legal complications, the matter was referred to arbitration. -----Issues: 1- Whether the application for stay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, was valid in the absence of an arbitration clause in the agreement. ----2- Whether the arbitration proceedings should take precedence over the civil suit for specific performance. ----3- Whether the appellate court correctly allowed the stay of proceedings in the civil suit until the arbitration was completed. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the appellate court's decision to stay the civil suit was valid. It reasoned that despite the absence of an explicit arbitration clause in the agreement, the parties had agreed to refer their dispute to arbitration. The petitioner had already participated in the arbitration proceedings, and an award had been rendered. The court found no illegality in the appellate court’s decision to allow the stay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The civil revision petition was dismissed, and the parties were instructed to proceed with the arbitration outcome. -----Citations/Precedents: Farid Virani v. Feroz Virani (PLD 2013 Sindh 386) – Stated the purpose of Section 34 to enforce arbitration agreements and prevent unnecessary court litigation. Mrs. Rubby Hameedullah & others v. Dr. Arif & others (2010 YLR 3331) – Emphasized that disputes subject to an arbitration agreement must be resolved through arbitration, not court proceedings. Sqn. Ldr. (R.) Khurram Zaman v. Mrs. Afia Zafar & others (2008 CLD 662) – Affirmed the right to stay legal proceedings when an arbitration agreement exists and arbitration is initiated. Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume-II – Defined arbitration as a process for dispute resolution outside of court. The court upheld the sanctity of arbitration agreements and affirmed that parties are bound by their contractual commitments to resolve disputes through arbitration.

Summary: Summary pending