Summary: ----Background:Mehr Muhammad, the appellant, allegedly murdered his brother?s wife, Mst. Bakht Begum, and injured his brother, Taj Muhammad, by firing at them on 21.07.2008 in village Khushal Garh, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Tamman, Distric

Summary: 1. Resignation – Effectiveness and Obligation to Perform Duties: (PLD 2007 SC 852; 2010 SCMR 1386; 2008 YLR 2132; 2010 MLD 527; PLD 2005 Quetta 145; 1990 MLD 1132; 1984 CLC 2231; PLD 1958 Karachi 75) A resignation tendered by an employee does not take effect until formally accepted by the competent authority. An employee remains obligated to perform duties until acceptance. Unauthorized absence before acceptance constitutes misconduct, subject to disciplinary proceedings. ----2. Jurisdiction of the High Court – Article 199 of the Constitution: High Court jurisdiction under Article 199 is discretionary and equitable. Relief may be denied if the petitioner’s conduct is deemed unworthy, such as unauthorized absence before the acceptance of resignation. ----3. Administrative Proceedings – Misconduct and Disciplinary Action: (PLD 2007 SC 852; 2010 SCMR 1386) Unauthorized absence following the tendering of resignation, which is not formally accepted, is classified as misconduct. Disciplinary actions, including major penalties such as removal from service, may be imposed. ----4. Exit Control List (E.C.L.) – Restrictions on Employment and Travel: Placement of an employee's name on the E.C.L. by a sensitive organization must align with statutory provisions. It cannot act as a punitive measure for employment disputes without due process. ----5. Disposition --Appeal Partly Allowed: The impugned judgment dated 03.04.2012 was set aside to the extent of directing the appellants to accept the respondent's resignation with effect from 06.08.2008. --Relief Denied for Misconduct: The respondent’s unauthorized absence from duty rendered him ineligible for equitable relief under Article 199 of the Constitution. Costs: No order as to costs. Order accordingly.

Summary: 1). Name of Applicant put on the ECL u/s 2 of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordincance 1981 forwarded to the Interior Ministry, Government of Pakistan by Additional Registrar of SECP, Peshawar be removed from the said ECL in view of order dated 18.05.2009, passed by this Court as Company Judge on the ground that petitioner is ready to furnish heavy surety bond and liberty of a citizen of Pakistan could not be curtailed mere on filing of a criminal complaint (original) by SECP, Karachi u/s 282-K/230(7)/234(6) of Companies Ordinance 1984 r/w section 409& 109 of PPC, wherein the role of application is of abetment. Application allowed in view of earlier order of Company Bench of this Court dated 18.05.2009 subject to furnishing of surety bond worth Rs. one million with two sureties each in the like amount with the Additional (Judl:) Registrar of this Court. Reliance placed on Wajid shams-ul-Hassan case PLD 1997 SC 617. Federation of Pakistan Vs General (R) Pervas Musharaf Case cited as PLD 2016 SC 570, Ms.Ayan Ali cited as 2017 SCMR 1179.

Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------S. 25---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.13---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.100---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Alternate and efficaciousremedy---Recovery of minor child---Execution of decree passed by Guardian Court---Custody ofminor was decided in favour of father---Father filed execution of decree but in response toprocess, mother of minor did not produce him before the court---Father sought production ofminor under Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court and to get his name placed on Exit ControlList---Validity---Held, adequate powers were available with Executing Court to implement orderof Family Court---In presence of remedy available under the law, i.e., Family Courts Act, 1964and Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, High Court declined to exercise its extraordinaryjurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution---Executing Court was fully empowered to issuedirections for placing name of minor on Exit Control List if so required---Executing Court wasfully empowered to execute the decree passed by the court competent jurisdiction---Father couldapply to the Executing Court for redressal of his grievance and also for implementation of thedecree---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------S. 25---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.13---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.100---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Alternate and efficaciousremedy---Recovery of minor child---Execution of decree passed by Guardian Court---Custody ofminor was decided in favour of father---Father filed execution of decree but in response toprocess, mother of minor did not produce him before the court---Father sought production ofminor under Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court and to get his name placed on Exit ControlList---Validity---Held, adequate powers were available with Executing Court to implement orderof Family Court---In presence of remedy available under the law, i.e., Family Courts Act, 1964and Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, High Court declined to exercise its extraordinaryjurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution---Executing Court was fully empowered to issuedirections for placing name of minor on Exit Control List if so required---Executing Court wasfully empowered to execute the decree passed by the court competent jurisdiction---Father couldapply to the Executing Court for redressal of his grievance and also for implementation of thedecree---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------S. 25---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.13---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.100---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Alternate and efficaciousremedy---Recovery of minor child---Execution of decree passed by Guardian Court---Custody ofminor was decided in favour of father---Father filed execution of decree but in response toprocess, mother of minor did not produce him before the court---Father sought production ofminor under Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court and to get his name placed on Exit ControlList---Validity---Held, adequate powers were available with Executing Court to implement orderof Family Court---In presence of remedy available under the law, i.e., Family Courts Act, 1964and Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, High Court declined to exercise its extraordinaryjurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution---Executing Court was fully empowered to issuedirections for placing name of minor on Exit Control List if so required---Executing Court wasfully empowered to execute the decree passed by the court competent jurisdiction---Father couldapply to the Executing Court for redressal of his grievance and also for implementation of thedecree---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------S. 25---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.13---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.100---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Alternate and efficaciousremedy---Recovery of minor child---Execution of decree passed by Guardian Court---Custody ofminor was decided in favour of father---Father filed execution of decree but in response toprocess, mother of minor did not produce him before the court---Father sought production ofminor under Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court and to get his name placed on Exit ControlList---Validity---Held, adequate powers were available with Executing Court to implement orderof Family Court---In presence of remedy available under the law, i.e., Family Courts Act, 1964and Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, High Court declined to exercise its extraordinaryjurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution---Executing Court was fully empowered to issuedirections for placing name of minor on Exit Control List if so required---Executing Court wasfully empowered to execute the decree passed by the court competent jurisdiction---Father couldapply to the Executing Court for redressal of his grievance and also for implementation of thedecree---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Summary: Placement of name of the petitioner in the Exit Control List, however, no reason much less plausible has been given by the Federal Govt. while taking the impugned action, particularly , when provision of section 2 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 were not available with them, & as such the impugned action was declared illegal, unlawful & of no legal effect.

Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)---Immigration---Exit Control List.----Ss. 12 & 25---Parental jurisdiction of guardian court---Scope---Father sought direction ofHigh Court to place name of his son/minor on Exit Control List (ECL) to ensure minor not toleave territorial jurisdiction of High Court---Mother raised objection on maintainability ofconstitutional petition and contended that the matter was already sub judice before GuardianCourt who had parental jurisdiction for the matter in hand---Validity---Record revealed thatfather himself had admitted that he had already filed petition under S. 25 of the Guardians andWards Act, 1890 for the custody of the minor in which the Guardian Court had restrained themother to remove the minor from the territorial jurisdiction of the court without priorpermission---Guardian Court had also directed the mother to produce the minor along with hispassport before the Guardian Court---Record also depicted that, with the mutual consent of theparties before the Guardian Judge, a meeting of father/petitioner was arranged with the minor inpresence of Bailiff by the Guardian Court---Appearance of the parties with consent before theGuardian Court, due to which the father/petitioner had met the minor and had also obtained orderfor staying the guardianship of minor pursuant to the filing of constitutional petition, prime facieshowed that there was no apprehension of removing the minor out of country---High Courtobserved that Guardian Court, who was seized of the matter, shall decide all pendingapplications of the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law---Constitutionalpetition was dismissed accordingly.Sardar Hussain and others v. Mst. Parveen Umer and others PLD 2004 SC 357 ref.

Summary: The case involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sindh High Court. The High Court had allowed a Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 1, directing the Ministry of Interior to remove her name from the Exit Control List (ECL) to allow her to travel abroad. The petitioners argued that removing the respondent's name from the ECL would absolve her of charges under Acts related to customs, foreign exchange, and import-export control, even though the case was pending in the Customs Court. They also contended that the High Court shouldn't have intervened as there were alternate remedies available under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981. The respondent's counsel argued that the respondent hadn't committed crimes listed in the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010, and thus her movement should not be restricted. The legal precedent referenced in the case is the judgment of Muhammad Aslam vs. Senior Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others (2004 SCMR 1587). The Court observed that mere pendency of a criminal case wasn't sufficient to restrict the respondent's movement unless she was charged with specific crimes listed in the relevant rules. While the Court acknowledged the importance of legal forums and remedies, it found no grounds to prohibit the respondent's movement. The Court also clarified that removal from the ECL wouldn't affect the trial court's ability to enforce attendance. In summary, the Court dismissed the petitions, refusing the requested leave to appeal.