Summary: Background: The appeals arose from the decision of the High Court of Sindh, which held that Cantonment Boards could not levy professional taxes on individuals engaged in professions, trades, callings, or employments within their jurisdiction. The Cantonment Boards, including Cantonment Board Faisal and Cantonment Board Clifton, argued that they were empowered to levy such taxes under the Cantonments Act, 1924, and through various constitutional provisions. The appeals sought to challenge the High Court's ruling, particularly in light of the changes brought about by the insertion of Article 140A into the Constitution of Pakistan. ----Issues: 1- Whether Cantonment Boards have the authority to impose professional taxes under the Cantonments Act, 1924, and related constitutional provisions. 2- Whether Article 140A of the Constitution grants local governments, including Cantonment Boards, the power to levy professional taxes. 3- Whether the decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court in earlier cases, including the ICI case, still apply following constitutional amendments. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Cantonment Boards do not have the authority to impose professional taxes as defined under Article 163 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that only provincial assemblies are empowered to impose such taxes. The introduction of Article 140A did not alter the constitutional scheme set out in Article 163, and the Cantonment Boards could not levy professional taxes even under the amended Cantonments Act, 1924. The Court agreed with the earlier decision in the ICI Pakistan Ltd. v. Tehsil Council case (PLD 2007 SC 428), reaffirming that professional taxes can only be imposed by provincial assemblies, and any provision of the Cantonments Act authorizing the imposition of such taxes was ultra vires the Constitution. The Court ordered that any professional taxes collected by the Cantonment Boards be refunded to the affected parties. ----Citations/Precedents: ICI Pakistan Ltd. v. Tehsil Council (PLD 2007 SC 428) Pfizer Laboratories Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 64) Province of Punjab v. Sargodha Textile Mills Ltd. (PLD 2005 SC 988) Flying Cement Co. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2016 Lahore 35)

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: An appeal was filed challenging the competence of legal advisors to represent the government in appellate matters. The court examined the authority of the Advocate-General to assign cases and established the distinction between law officers and legal advisors under various rulings. Additionally, the case discussed the appointment and terms of service of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, highlighting issues of discrimination in setting his terms against precedents that equate the position with that of a High Court Judge. ----Issues: 1- Whether legal advisors appointed by the Advocate-General can represent the government in appellate matters. 2- Whether the terms and conditions of the Custodian of Evacuee Property should be aligned with those of a High Court Judge. 3- Whether the government's actions in setting the terms for the Custodian were discriminatory and against established precedents. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that legal advisors, not being law officers, cannot represent the government in appellate proceedings. This decision was based on previous rulings that emphasized the Advocate-General's authority to assign cases limited to law officers only. Regarding the Custodian of Evacuee Property, the court affirmed that the position is equivalent to that of a High Court Judge, thereby requiring similar terms and conditions. The government's attempt to reduce the Custodian's status and benefits was deemed discriminatory and inconsistent with established legal precedents. ----Citations/Precedents: AJ&K Government & others vs. Muhammad Ishaq & others (2021 SCR 23) Secretary Finance and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (Civil App. No. 147/2023, decided on 06.09.2023) Ahmed Saeed Khan vs. Azad Govt. & others Muhammad Bashir Khan’s case (2019 SCR 697) Abdul Samad and others vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (2002 SCMR 71) Raja Shahnawaz Khan’s case (PLJ 2013 SC AJK 186)

Summary: Extension in mining lease under Rule 228 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002 would be on the basis of latest reserve price, whereas, refund of proportionate bid money for determined lost period of lease under Rule 222 of the said Rules would be based on bid money on which the lease was granted.

Summary: Defence can ask questions from doctor/PW about medico-legal examination of accused persons; procedure explained in the light of provisions under Articles, 152, 155 & 156 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 read with section 265-F(7) of Cr.P.C.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Recruitment in Police Department - Candidates having criminal antecedents. Scope of Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 where offender admits his guilt and released on parole by Magistrate with observation that his conviction shall not affect his appointment to Govt. service. Held: Standing Order No.06/2015 issued by Police Department contemplates that candidates having criminal antecedents are not to be appointed. In instant case the petitioner confessed his guilt and learned Magistrate sent him to parole with the observation that such parole shall not effect the appointment to Govt. service. Observation of learned Judicial Magistrate sending an accused on parole under Ordinance after his confession cannot nullify the department policy envisaged under the Standing Order inasmuch as such an observation was made without discussing the Standing Order No.06/2015. Moreover, such an observation may hold some persuasion in any other department but not in police force. Standard expected of a person intending to join a uniformed service like the Police Department is quite distinct, from other services, which is required to be more disciplined institution and inclusion of person having criminal antecedents could have bearing on the discipline of the force that is tasked to maintain law and order in the society. Case reported as "Inspector-General of Police Punjab, Lahore and others v. Mahmood Ikram" (1998 SCMR 765) is distinguished.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending