Summary: In Writ Petition No. 392-P/2024, Miss Nigareen Zeb (the petitioner) challenged the admission policy for Public Sector Medical Colleges in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, seeking relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioner argued that the policy was discriminatory and unfair, specifically regarding the allocation and selection of open and reserved seats. She sought a declaration that the policy was illegal and that she should be admitted to a medical college based on her merit. ----Issues: 1) Legality and Fairness of the Admission Policy: Whether the admission policy for Public Sector Medical Colleges was discriminatory, arbitrary, and in violation of fundamental rights. ---2) Application Process for Different Categories: Whether the requirement for candidates to apply separately for each category of seats and the non-consideration of candidates who did not apply for specific categories were legal and non-discriminatory. ---3) Consideration of Merit and Reserved Quotas: Whether the petitioner and other candidates from the newly merged districts (NMDs) were fairly considered for admission based on their merit and the reserved quotas. ---4) Jurisdiction of the Court in Policy Matters: Whether the High Court can interfere in the policy-making domain of universities or the executive when the policy is alleged to be discriminatory. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Legality and Fairness of the Admission Policy: The court examined the admission policy, which reserved seats for candidates from NMDs, including District Mohmand, where the petitioner belonged. The policy aimed to provide educational opportunities to candidates from backward areas with limited educational facilities. The court held that the policy was based on reasonable classification and was in line with Article 37 of the Constitution, which aims to promote educational and economic interests of backward classes. The court found no violation of fundamental rights in the policy. -----Application Process for Different Categories: The petitioner argued that the requirement to apply separately for each category of seats and the non-consideration of candidates for specific categories were discriminatory. The court held that the admission process, including the requirement to apply separately for different categories, was designed to ensure a fair and transparent selection process. The court found that the policy did not discriminate against the petitioner or other candidates from NMDs. ----Consideration of Merit and Reserved Quotas: The petitioner failed to secure admission on the reserved seats for District Mohmand due to lower merit compared to other candidates. She argued that candidates with higher merit should have been considered for open merit seats. The court noted that the admission policy provided separate quotas for candidates from NMDs and open merit seats. Allowing NMD candidates to compete for open merit seats would deprive candidates from settled areas of their opportunities. The court found no unfairness or discrimination in the policy. ----Jurisdiction of the Court in Policy Matters: The court reiterated that it is not the function of the High Court to interfere in the policy-making domain of universities or the executive unless the policy is violative of statutory laws or regulations. The court referenced several precedents emphasizing judicial restraint in policy matters, including: Watan Party and another vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2013 SC 167) Fasihuddin Khan Vardag vs. Government of Pakistan and others (2014 SCMR 646) Travel Shop (PVT) LTD vs. Messrs Travels (PLD 2014 SC 1) Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan vs. Federation of Pakistan (2012 SCMR 455) ----Citations/Precedents: Watan Party and another vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2013 SC 167) Fasihuddin Khan Vardag vs. Government of Pakistan and others (2014 SCMR 646) Travel Shop (PVT) LTD vs. Messrs Travels (PLD 2014 SC 1) Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan vs. Federation of Pakistan (2012 SCMR 455) ----Outcome: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the admission policy for Public Sector Medical Colleges was not discriminatory or violative of any statutory laws or regulations. The policy was based on reasonable classification to ensure fair opportunities for candidates from backward areas. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to admission based on her merit and the reserved quotas. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, with no order as to costs. This judgment highlights the court's role in balancing individual rights with policy objectives aimed at promoting educational opportunities for underprivileged areas while maintaining judicial restraint in policy matters unless there is a clear violation of law or fundamental rights.

Summary: Background: Razia Begum and five others filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the order dated February 27, 2018, passed by Member Judicial-III of the Board of Revenue, Punjab. This order accepted the revision filed by respondents No.5 to 12, set aside the order dated March 15, 2017, by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, and restored the orders dated January 28, 2016, and September 25, 2014. ---Issues: 1) Whether the decree for specific performance can be directly implemented in the revenue record through mutation without filing an execution petition. ---2) Whether the predecessor of the petitioners fulfilled the condition of the decree by depositing the remaining consideration amount within the stipulated period. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Direct Implementation of Decree: The court held that a decree for specific performance cannot be directly implemented in the revenue record without the indulgence of the executing court. The executing court is responsible for ensuring the sale deed is executed in favor of the decree-holder and possession is delivered in accordance with the decree. Condition of Decree: The court found no proof or material on record suggesting that the predecessor of the petitioners fulfilled the condition of depositing the remaining consideration amount within the stipulated period. The trial court did not have jurisdiction to extend the period for deposit after the stipulated period expired. ---Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Wahid and another versus Nasrullah and another (2016 SCMR 179) ALI AHMAD and another versus MUHAMMAD FAZAL and another (1972 SCMR 322) Hakim Enayat Ullah v. Khalil Ullah Khan and another (AIR 1938 All 438) Majid v. Nizam Din and others (PLD 1959 Lahore 273) Haji Abdul Rehman and others v. Noor Ahmad and others (PLD 1974 BJ 25) Muhammad Ishaq v. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 1979 Lahore 909) Syed Manzoor Hussain Shah v. Khurshid Ahmad and 4 others (1989 CLC 1372) ---Conclusion: The court concluded that the respondent No.1 (Member Judicial-III) was correct in accepting the revision filed by respondents No.5 to 12 and restoring the previous orders. The impugned order was found to be well-reasoned, justified, and in accordance with the law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as misconceived and not maintainable.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant was convicted by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas for offences under Sections 452 PPC, and was acquitted for charges under Sections 376 and 511 PPC. The conviction led to a sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000, with a default sentence of four months of simple imprisonment. The appellant was accused of forcibly entering the complainant's house and attempting to commit rape, but during the trial, the evidence for Sections 376 and 511 PPC was found insufficient, leading to his acquittal on these charges. However, he was convicted for the offence under Section 452 PPC. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant under Section 452 PPC. 2- Whether the compromise reached between the parties can lead to the appellant's acquittal despite the non-compoundable nature of the offence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Compromise Between Parties: The complainant and the appellant stated that they had settled their differences through community intervention and no longer wished to pursue the case against each other. State's Position: The Additional Prosecutor General acknowledged the complainant's unwillingness to continue prosecuting the appellant but highlighted that the offence under Section 452 PPC is non-compoundable. ---Court's Reasoning: The court recognized the prolonged agony faced by the appellant due to the trial and appeal process. Noting the superior courts' guidance that, in some situations, parties may be allowed to live peacefully even in non-compoundable offences, the court deemed it appropriate to consider the compromise and settle the matter in the interest of justice. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment dated 18-08-2017 to the extent of the appellant's conviction under Section 452 PPC. The appellant was acquitted of the charge, and his bail bond was canceled, and surety discharged. -----Citations/Precedents: Ashiq Solangi and another vs. The State (PLD 2008 Karachi 420) Aamir and 2 others vs. The State and another (2011 MLD 1468 [Lahore]) Ghulam Shabbir and 2 others vs. The State (2003 SCMR 663) Ali Raza and another vs. The State and another (PLD 2013 Lahore 651) Tasawar Hussain vs. The State and another (2021 YLR Note 124 [Islamabad]) Muhammad Jamil and others vs. The State and another (2013 P Cr. L J 1458 [Lahore])

Summary: Background: The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sanghar, under Section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. He was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 10,000, with an additional three months of simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine. The trial court also ordered the appellant to hand over possession of the disputed property to the complainant. The appellant was accused of criminally trespassing and forcibly dispossessing the complainant from his agricultural land on 30-11-2021. The complainant filed a complaint under Sections 3(2) and 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, alleging that the appellant, armed with a deadly weapon, forcibly dispossessed him from his land without any legal right. ----Issues: 1- Whether the conviction under Section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was justified. 2- Whether the compromise between the parties can lead to the appellant's acquittal despite the non-compoundable nature of the offence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Compromise Between Parties: The appellant and the complainant submitted applications for compromise under Sections 345(2) and 345(6) Cr.P.C. The appellant argued that he had already handed over the possession of the disputed property to the complainant, and they had settled their differences amicably. ---State's Position: The Additional Prosecutor General recorded no objection to the compromise. ---Court's Reasoning: The court acknowledged the compromise between the parties and noted that the complainant no longer wished to pursue the case. The court referred to several precedents where compromise in non-compoundable offences was recognized, emphasizing that maintaining peace and harmony between the parties was paramount. The court allowed the appeal based on the compromise between the parties. The impugned judgment dated 15-10-2022 was set aside to the extent of the appellant's conviction and sentence of incarceration and fine. The direction for handing over possession of the disputed property to the complainant was maintained. The appellant was acquitted of the charges by way of compromise, his bail bond was canceled, and the surety was discharged. ----Citations/Precedents: Akhter Hussain vs. SHO Sachal Karachi and 2 others (2020 P Cr L J Note 20) Un-reported order in Criminal Appeal No. S-46/2016 Re: Khamiso Khan alias Riaz vs. Babar Aftab Siyal and another Ijaz and another v. Mst. Manadia (PLD 2016 Pesh. 26) The State v. Irfanullah Qazi (2007 MLD 1269) Abdul Wali (Wali Khan) and 3 others v. Abdul Rashid Arif and 2 others (2013 P Cr. L J 767) Abdul Wahab and 3 others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Okara and 3 others (PLD 2012 Lah. 305) Hussain Bux and others v. The State (PLD 2003 Karachi 127 (DB)) Shahid v. The State and another (2017 YLR Note 81 [Lahore]) Ali Raza and another v. The State and another (PLD 2013 Lahore 651)

Summary: Background: The plaintiff filed a civil suit under Section 9 CPC against the Tax Department, challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 15.01.2024 issued under Section 11(2) & (3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The notice alleged that the plaintiff was liable to pay Rs. 59,712,503. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the tax authorities. ----Issues: 1- Whether the plaintiff's suit against the tax authorities is maintainable without depositing 50% of the disputed tax amount as per the Supreme Court's directives in Searle IV Solution (Pvt.) Ltd and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2018 SCMR 1444). 2- Whether the plaintiff can challenge a show cause notice directly in the High Court without first availing the remedy before the adjudicating and appellate authorities. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Compliance with Supreme Court's Directives: The court emphasized that according to the Supreme Court's judgment in Searle IV Solution, civil suits arising from actions/orders of tax authorities must be sparingly entertained and should only proceed if the plaintiff deposits at least 50% of the calculated tax amount. The plaintiff failed to comply with this directive. ---Challenging Show Cause Notices: The court held that challenging a show cause notice directly in the High Court without first going through the adjudicating and appellate authorities is generally discouraged. The court noted that the plaintiff should have raised their legal issues with the respondents first. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Jehangir Khan Tareen (2022 SCMR 92), which stressed the importance of allowing the concerned authorities to handle show cause notices and discouraged court interference at this stage. The court dismissed the suit as not maintainable due to the plaintiff's failure to deposit 50% of the disputed tax amount and because the suit prematurely challenged a show cause notice without exhausting available remedies. The pending applications were also dismissed. ----Citations/Precedents: Searle IV Solution (Pvt.) Ltd and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2018 SCMR 1444) Jehangir Khan Tareen (2022 SCMR 92) Indus Motor Company Limited v. Pakistan (Order dated 13.02.2023 in C. P. No. D-5003/2019)

Summary: Background: The plaintiff filed a civil suit challenging the suspension of their Sales Tax Registration. On 31.05.2024, the court issued an ad-interim order restoring the Sales Tax Registration. The case was revisited on 27.06.2024 to address the matter of availing alternate remedies and to determine the maintainability of the suit. ----Issues: 1- Whether the plaintiff had availed the alternate remedy as required by law before filing the suit. 2- Whether the court should exercise its original jurisdiction in tax matters as guided by the Supreme Court in the case of Searle IV Solution (Pvt.) Ltd and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2018 SCMR 1444). ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Alternate Remedy: The court confronted the plaintiff’s counsel regarding the requirement to avail alternate remedies before filing the suit. It was noted that a pre-suspension notice was issued to the plaintiff in compliance with the judgment in Saleem Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan (2021 PTD 1813). The plaintiff’s counsel argued that no opportunity was provided despite the pre-suspension notice, but the court found this contention misconceived, as the requirement of law and dicta had been complied with. The court emphasized that the plaintiff should have pursued further remedies as outlined in Section 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. ---Exercise of Original Jurisdiction: The court referred to the Supreme Court's directives in Searle IV Solution, emphasizing that the original side jurisdiction in tax matters should be exercised sparingly and with caution. Specifically, the Supreme Court had directed that suits related to tax authorities’ actions should be expeditiously decided and entertained only if at least 50% of the tax amount calculated by the authorities is deposited. Given the plaintiff’s failure to comply with these conditions and the availability of alternate remedies, the court decided not to exercise its jurisdiction in this case. The suit was dismissed as not maintainable and misconceived due to the plaintiff’s failure to avail the alternate remedies and comply with the Supreme Court’s directives. All pending applications were also dismissed. ----Citations/Precedents: Searle IV Solution (Pvt.) Ltd and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2018 SCMR 1444) Saleem Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan (2021 PTD 1813)

Summary: Background: The plaintiffs filed suits challenging the tax authorities' actions and notices, specifically regarding the suspension of Sales Tax Registration and allegations of utilizing fake invoices to inflate input tax or reduce liability. Previous orders had directed the plaintiffs to deposit 50% of the amount claimed by the tax authorities as per the Supreme Court's guidelines in Searle IV Solution (Pvt.) Ltd and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2018 SCMR 1444). ----Issues: 1- Whether the plaintiffs complied with the order to deposit 50% of the amount claimed by the tax authorities. 2- Whether the court should exercise its jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed by the plaintiffs challenging the tax authorities' notices. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Compliance with Deposit Order: The plaintiffs did not comply with the order to deposit 50% of the disputed amount. The plaintiffs' counsel argued that the amount was not specified in the impugned notices and, therefore, the condition should not apply. However, the court found this contention incorrect as the notices did state the amounts alleged to be owed by the plaintiffs. ---Exercise of Jurisdiction: The court referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines in Searle IV Solution, which require that the original side jurisdiction in tax matters be exercised sparingly and with caution. The court emphasized that it is not mandated to exercise this jurisdiction in every case and highlighted that the plaintiffs should have availed alternative remedies, such as responding to the notices and engaging in the administrative process. ---Premature Filing of Suit: In the case of Exide Pakistan Ltd, the court noted that the challenge to the summons issued under Section 37 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, was premature as the plaintiff had not yet responded to the summons or provided the requested documentation. ---Legal Precedents and Bar on Relief: The court cited Section 56(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, which bars injunctive relief in criminal proceedings, and noted that the investigation related to an FIR lodged before the Special Judge (Custom, Taxation & Anti-Smuggling) should not be stayed by an interim order of the court. The suits were dismissed for failing to comply with the requirement to deposit 50% of the disputed amount and for not following the proper legal procedures. The court also ruled that its jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly, particularly in tax matters, and that the plaintiffs should pursue alternative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. -----Citations/Precedents: Searle IV Solution (Pvt.) Ltd and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2018 SCMR 1444) Agha Steel Industries Ltd. v. Directorate of Intelligence (2019 PTD 2119) Unreported judgment of this Court dated 13.09.2021 in Suit No. 2019/2015 (A&Z Agro Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others)

Summary: Background: This High Court Appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 7.11.2022 and 16.1.2023, respectively, by a learned Single Judge in a suit for damages. The respondents (plaintiffs in the original suit) initiated the suit alleging malicious prosecution by the appellant (defendant in the original suit), which led to significant financial and reputational damage. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant's actions constituted malicious prosecution against the respondent. 2- Whether the respondent's acquittal, attributed to the benefit of the doubt rather than an honourable acquittal, precludes a claim of malicious prosecution. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Malicious Prosecution Elements: The court reiterated that for a successful claim of malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must demonstrate: The prosecution by the defendant. Initiation with malice and not to further justice. Lack of reasonable and probable cause. Prosecution ended in favour of the person proceeded against. Damage was suffered due to the prosecution. ---Malice and Lack of Probable Cause: The court emphasized the necessity of proving both malice and the absence of reasonable and probable cause. Malice can be inferred from circumstantial evidence and implies ill will or improper motives. ---Honourable Acquittal vs. Simpliciter Acquittal: The court held that all acquittals, including those based on the benefit of the doubt, are considered honourable. The appellant’s argument that the acquittal was not honourable was rejected. ---Evidence and Admissions: The court found significant indicators of malicious intent, noting that the appellant pursued criminal proceedings despite a full and final settlement and failed to provide substantial evidence against the respondent. The delay in lodging the FIR was also highlighted as concerning. The court upheld the Single Judge’s judgment, finding that the initiation of criminal proceedings by the appellant was driven by malice. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs to the respondents. -----Citations/Precedents: 2012 CLD 6 [SC] (Abdul Majeed Khan v. Tawseen Abdul Haleem) PLD 1990 SC 28 (Muhammad Akram v. Farman Bi) PLD 1994 SC 476 (Abdul Rauf v. Abdul Razaq) PLD 2006 SC 432 (Niaz v. Abdul Sattar) PLD 2016 SC 478 (Muhammad Yousaf v. Abdul Qayyum) 2019 MLD 337 (Rehana Jadoon v. Arab Khan) 1998 SCMR 1993 (Dr. Muhammad Islam v. Government of NWFP) 2022 SCMR 1770 (Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer Gujrat)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending