Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
Fareed Ali and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Summary: regularization in MDA--In our view, every post is required to be filled through the method prescribed by law not otherwise. In the present case, the petitioners are admittedly Adhoc and contractual employees of the respondent-authority and thus have no vested right for regular appointment. So far as contract employment is concerned, In our view, a contract employee, whose period of contract employment expires by efflux of time, carries no vested right to remain in employment and this Court cannot force the respondent-authority to regularize or extend the contract period of the petitioners in writ jurisdiction. Prima-facie we do not see any illegality in advertising the subject posts to be filled through a competitive process, which is the requirement of law--It is well-settled that if a policy manifestly inconsistent with the Constitutional commands, retrogressive in nature, and discriminatory inter se the populace is not immune from judicial review.
Seamax Marine Services (Plaintiff) V/S The Ministry of Maritime Affairs & others. (Defendant)
Summary: Rule 48 of Public Procurement Rules, 2004--The case involves a dispute over a tender process conducted by the Karachi Port Trust (KPT) for the supply of pilot boats. The plaintiff participated in the tender process and raised objections about the technical qualifications of the competing bidder, Ocean World. The plaintiff's objections led to the tender being discharged by the KPT. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that the bidding process was not transparent and that the KPT had acted unlawfully. The KPT argued that the plaintiff should have followed the grievance redressal mechanism specified under Rule 48 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 (PPR), and that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by this rule. The judge determined that Rule 48, which provides for a grievance redressal committee and an appeal process, does not expressly bar the jurisdiction of a civil court. The judge also cites precedent to emphasize that the jurisdiction of civil courts should not be inferred lightly and that certain conditions need to be met to establish an ouster of jurisdiction. In this case, since the grievance redressal committee was constituted by the KPT after the lawsuit was filed and the plaintiff's access to the committee was not provided timely, the judge rules that the jurisdiction of the civil court was not ousted. Ultimately, the judge dismissed the KPT's application for rejection of the plaintiff's suit based on the argument of jurisdiction.
Prof: Dr. Muhammad Ahmed Qadri and Others (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Summary: The Government of Sindh is directed to expedite the process by ensuring reconstituting of Search Committee within two months from the receipt of this order and shall also complete the process of interview of all the candidates afresh for the appointment for the post of Vice-Chancellor, University of Karachi, at the earliest. Meanwhile, the Search Committee (after reconstitution) shall send the copies of the original academic certificates/degrees/publications of the petitioners and the private respondents to the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan for verification. The Higher Education Commission of Pakistan is directed to look into the academic qualification certificates/publications of the petitioners and the private respondents and after ascertaining genuineness or otherwise submit the report to the Search Committee constituted by the Government of Sindh in a sealed envelope within one month for further proceedings.
Jubilee General Ins. Co. Ltd., & another. (Plaintiff) V/S Federation of Pakistan & Others. (Defendant)
Summary: Assistant Director, Directorate of Intelligence & Investigation, Islamabad has no jurisdiction to issue any notice to a tax payer, who is not registered either with LTU or RTO Islamabad in terms of SRO 350(I)/2014 dated 7.5.2014.
Rab Dino (Petitioner) V/S P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent)
Summary: [Ehtram-e-Ramazan Ordinance, 1981 (Section 5)] Since in all the petition, the places mentioned does not fall within exemption given under section 5 of the Ordinance, therefore, all the petitions are dismissed.
Bank Alfalah Limited (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Summary: [Banking Law, Criminal Procedure Code, General Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 24A)] petitioner is precluded from raising such contentionin the generalized form, more importantly as we have already observed itis not the kind of investigation that would be governed by any of theabove enactment since it involves a question of granting auto loan onthe basis of bogus document such as Auto loan agreement, ID Card ofindividuals who never applied for such loan. It is mainly related to theirofficers concerned and it is to be seen whether any public exchequer,cess was involved and/or misappropriated including but not limited tothe offence that has already been registered.
Ghulam Farooq (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Summary: In our view, no candidate shall be appointed to a post unless after such medical examination as Government may prescribe such candidate is found medically fit to discharge the duties of the post. In the present case, the petitioner was relieved from the duties on medical grounds and his appeal was rejected on the same analogy. Besides above, the assertion of the petitioner is misconceived on the premise that he obtained a medical examination fitness test certificate on 02.12.2019 after the rejection of his appeal, on 14.5.2019, thus this document could not be taken into consideration, besides the respondents have relied upon the documents which prima facie show adverse inference against him. Thus, at this stage, we cannot declare him medically fit or otherwise for the subject post, which was a contractual position and by efflux of time expired.
Mst. Seema D/o. Noor Muhammad (Late) (Petitioner) V/S Wajid Ali Shah & Others. (Respondent)
Summary: [Family matter ( Remarrying after Khulla )] I would, respectfully, add that bona fide be attached with her act of second marriage as same is,undeniably, after resort to her available course i.e approaching honourable Court for khula and obtaining thereof; technical remand order as well dismissal of her suit (challenged by her) shouldnot be allowed to undo a legal and rightful act i.e remarrying afterkhula because such act (remarriage) can be nothing but a seal on door of her first-marriage and that she is happy with decision of khula. Any technical defect, in such peculiar circumstances, needs to be ignored because law favours the rights over procedure.
Shahrukh Shakeel Khan and others (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh and others (Respondent)
Summary: School Fees Judgement---The petitioners include individuals, schools, and parents, while the respondents consist of the Province of Sindh through various government officials. The case primarily revolves around the legality and regulation of fee increases imposed by private educational institutions. The court examines the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulations and Control) Ordinance, 2001, and the associated rules, which provide a framework for the operation and regulation of private schools. The court highlights the importance of education as a fundamental right and cites constitutional provisions supporting free and compulsory education. Schools argue against the restriction on annual fee increases to 5% and claim it infringes upon their autonomy and business rights. Parents and students assert that the mechanism in place is not being enforced effectively, resulting in unjustified fee hikes and financial strain on families. The court dismisses the schools' argument against the 5% fee increase restriction, emphasizing that the issue is not the mechanism but the percentage itself. The court acknowledges that determining the appropriate percentage requires a thorough consideration of various factors, which falls outside the scope of writ jurisdiction. The court rules in favor of the parents and students, highlighting that the existing mechanism is not functioning as intended. It orders the Department of Education to strictly enforce the rules and regulations, ensuring compliance with the 5% fee increase rule.
Mst. Humera Jabeen & Ors (Plaintiff) V/S Muhammad Arshad & Ors (Defendant)
Summary: Principles of recusals of a Judge.