Summary: Background:The petitioners were apprehended by the Fisheries Department of the Government of Balochistan for fishing within internal waters in violation of the Balochistan Sea Fisheries Ordinance, 1971. The interception occurred on 14th December 2018, resulting in the arrest of 21 individuals on board the fishing craft named Al-Faisal-II. The confiscated fishing craft was ordered to be auctioned, and the petitioners were convicted under section 9 of the Ordinance by a Judicial Magistrate, leading to varying sentences of imprisonment. The conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge on appeal but later modified by the High Court of Balochistan, reducing the sentence.---Issues:Whether the conviction under section 9 of the Balochistan Sea Fisheries Ordinance, 1971 was justified based on the evidence presented.Whether the confiscation and auction of the fishing craft were lawful actions.Whether the reduction in sentence by the High Court was appropriate.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court upheld the conviction of the petitioners under section 9 of the Balochistan Sea Fisheries Ordinance, 1971. The court found that the evidence, including the use of a prohibited net within internal waters as established by a map presented during the trial, unequivocally supported their guilt. The sentence, although initially deemed lenient by the High Court, was ultimately upheld. Furthermore, the confiscation and auction of the fishing craft were deemed lawful under the provisions of the Ordinance.---Citations/Precedents:Balochistan Sea Fisheries Ordinance, 1971 (Baln Ord. IX of 1971)Proviso to section 9 of the Balochistan Sea Fisheries Ordinance, 1971

Summary: Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)-

Summary: (a) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)- -Ss. 15, 19 & 22-Eviction petition-Leave to contest-Concurrent findings-Scope-Petitioners assailed the rejection of their application for leave to defend the ejectment petition; the order of acceptance of ejectment petition and the judgment of appellate court dismissing the appeal-Contention of petitioners was that the property was allotted to their predecessor by the Settlement Authorities whereas respondent's claim was that the property was in ownership of a Bank whose assets and liabilities were devolved upon and taken over by it under Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974-Validity-Supreme Court had settled the controversy between the parties regarding ownership of the property and had declared the respondent to be landlord of petitioners-Respondent had filed ejectment petition under Ss. 15 & 19 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, which was duly contested by the petitioners by filing application for leave to defend under S. 22, Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009-Special Judge (Rent) had refused to grant leave to contest by ordering the petitioners to handover vacant possession of property to the respondent-Appeal filed by petitioners under S.28, was heard and dismissed-Under the rule of law, the access to justice was provided to the parties-Findings of both the courts were in consonance with law-Constitutional petition was dismissed. Fazal Raziz v. Haji Sher Zaman and 2 others 2016 MLD 121; Amin and others v. Hafiz Ghulam Muhammd and others PLD 2006 SC 549; Mirza Book Agency through Managing Partner and others v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others 2013 SCMR 1520; Nadeem Zafar and others v. Muhammad Ismaeel and others PLD 2012 Lah. 178 and Hafiz Muhammad Shahid Nawaz v. Hafiz Muhammad Saeed 2010 CLC 1941 ref. United Bank Limited and others v. Noor-un-Nisa and others 2015 SCMR 380; Sakhi Jan and others v. Shah Nawaz and another 2020 SCMR 832; 2007 SCMR 1446; 2017 YLR 1691; PLD 2016 Isl. 1 and President, All Pakistan Women Association, Peshawar Cantt. v. Muhammad Akbar Awan and others 2020 SCMR 260 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199-Constitutional jurisdiction-Scope-Concurrent findings-Effect-Constitutional jurisdiction is exercised with great care and caution where there are concurrent findings of courts below as the same cannot be used as a substitute for appeal-Evidence duly appreciated by the courts below cannot be re-appreciated on the ground that different opinion can also be formed in Constitutional jurisdiction-Appraisal of evidence is the function of courts below and if the findings are based on proper appraisal of evidence then the same cannot be interfered with lightly in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction-Party approaching the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution, has to demonstrate that there is some gross misreading or non-reading of evidence or any jurisdictional defect floating on the surface of the record. Sajida Anwar v. Additional District Judge and others 2018 YLR 1713; Malik Muhammad Hussain v. District Returning Officer and others 2008 SCMR 488 and Shamshad Begum v. Mst. Huma Begum and others 2008 SCMR 79 ref. Shajar Islam v. Muhammad Siddique and 2 others PLD 2007 SC 45 rel. (c) Maxim- -Res judicata pro veritate occipitur: Decision which is once rendered by a competent court on a matter in issue between the parties after a full enquiry should not be permitted to be agitated over and again. (d) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 189-Decisions of Supreme Court binding on other Courts-Obiter dicta-Scope-Decisions of Supreme Court are binding on all the courts subordinate to it when they decide the question of law and enunciate the principles of law-Even the obiter dicta of the Supreme Court is of greater value. Shahid Pervaiz v. Ijaz Ahmad and others 2017 SCMR 206 rel. Muhammad Kashif Pasha and Hamid-ul-Rehman Nasir, Research Officers of Lahore High Court Research Center, Research Assistance. "Life, liberty, property, and the equal protection of the law, grouped together in the Constitution, are so related that the deprivation of any of those separate and independent rights may lessen or extinguish the value of the other three" Smith v. Texas, 233 U.S. 630, 636 (1914) J. Joseph Rucker Lamar, US Supreme Court

Summary: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)- -S. 6-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199-Districts to be divided into Sub-Divisions-Scope-Petitioners sought declaration to the effect that notification whereby the concerned village council was included in the newly created Tehsil as illegal-Validity-Residents of Village Council might not be happy over the inclusion of their area in the newly established Tehsil but according to S.6 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act, 1967, each district could be divided into such Tehsils or Sub-Tehsils with such limits and such areas as the Government might by notification specify-High Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction could not determine whether the newly created Tehsil would bring convenience to the people of the concerned village council or otherwise-Creation of new Districts and Tehsils, detachment of some area from one Tehsil and its inclusion into another were purely administrative and policy decisions of the Government, legality or otherwise of which could not be questioned before the Court in a Constitutional petition which had a very limited scope-Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 240 & Fourth Sched.-Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S. 23-Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S. 25-Provincial legislative autonomy-Scope-Policy notification of Federal Government-Question as to whether it was obligatory upon the Provincial Government while adopting a policy notification of the Federal Government regarding a matter, which was within the competence and domain of the Province after Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment, to follow and give effect to the same from the very date as given by Federal Government-Held, that it was within the exclusive domain of a Provincial Government to adopt a policy/notification of the Federal Government, which fell within the Province's legislative competence and it could make its applicability within the province from such date, which it found appropriate-Mere adopting of such notification of the Federal government did not make the same ipso facto applicable in entirety (in the Province) unless directed so by the Provincial Government as it is within the Province's competence to limit or extend such applicability and it was not obligated to adopt a policy on the same date as made applicable by the Federal Government. Appellant retired from the service of Provincial Government on 09.08.2013, where after he was granted his pensionary benefits. Later on, the Federal Government amended Revised Leave Rules, 1980 by enhancing the period for leave preparatory to retirement from 180 days to 365 days with effect from 01-07-2012. The Provincial Secretary Finance Department also adopted aforesaid notification on 09-09-2013 by giving it effect from 01-09-2013. The grievance of the appellant was that since the Provincial Government had adopted the notification of Federal Government regarding enhancement of leave preparatory to retirement period therefore, the Provincial Government had to give effect to the said notification from the same date as made by the Federal Government had done i.e. 01-07-2012 and not from 01-09-2013. The appellant challenged notification dated 01-09-2013 (the "Notification") issued by the Provincial Government in the writ petition which was dismissed. Main issue in the present case was whether it was obligatory upon the Provincial Government that while adopting the Notification of Federal Government on 09-09-2013, it should have given it effect from 01.01.2012, the date when the Federal Government had given it effect and no choice was available with the Provincial Government to effectuate the same with effect from 01-09-2013. In relation to service matters, the employees of Federal Government were regulated under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 while the employees of Provincial Government were regulated under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Appellant performed his duties and retired from the service in connection with the affairs of a Province and his services were regulated under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Argument of the appellant to implement the Notification of the Federal Government in the province was not tenable because Provincial law had its own mechanism, rules and regulations and the amendments therein were to be made by the provinces through the Provincial Assembly. Under the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011, the Services and General Administration Department of the Government of the Punjab had the mandate to administer Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and make rules therein hence, Notification in question was rightly passed by the Provincial Assembly. Furthermore, after 18th Amendment to the Constitution, in set up of service matters, the Constitution had drawn a line between the services of Pakistan with the Federation and Provinces, hence they were distinguished from each other in respect of making laws. Punjab Higher Education Commission v. Dr. Aurangzeb Alamgir and others PLD 2017 Lah. 489; Government of Sindh and others v. Dr. Nadeem Rizvi and others 2020 SCMR 1 and Messrs Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2018 SCMR 802 ref. After abolishment of concurrent list in Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, Provincial Assembly became absolute once the domain of a legislation fell within its competence. In service matters, each province had separate laws because under Article 240 of the Constitution, each province had legislation similar to that of the Federal Government's Civil Servants Act, 1973. Words used under Article 240 of the Constitution were very clear on the appointment and conditions to service of Pakistan and in connection with affairs of provinces the same were to be determined by the Provinces under an Act of the Provincial Assembly. Muzaffar Khan and others v. Government of Pakistan and others 2013 SCMR 304 ref. The (Federal) Ministry of Finance and Revenue (Finance Division) functioning under the Rules of Business, 1973, by exercising powers conferred under section 25 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, amended its Revised Leave Rules, 1980 on 29-08-2012. The effect and benefit of such amendment was applicable only to civil servants functioning under the Federal Government. On the other hand, the Finance Department, Government of Punjab, which functioned under the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011 exercised the powers conferred under section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and amended the Revised Leave Rules, 1981 and by adopting the same relief, as given by the Federal Government, extended the same benefit to its employees. After omission of the Concurrent List from the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution post Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment, now Provinces had exclusive domain and legislative competence to legislate and regulate upon all those matters, which were earlier part of that list. It was therefore within the exclusive domain of Provincial Government to adopt a policy/Notification of the Federal Government, which falls within its legislative competence and it could make its applicability within the province from such date, which it found appropriate. Mere adopting of such Notification of the Federal Government did not make the same ipso facto applicable in entirety (in the Province) unless directed so by the Provincial Government as it is within its competence to limit or extend such applicability and it was not obligated to adopt a policy on the same date as made applicable by the Federal Government. Matter of service of persons serving at posts in connection with the affairs of the Province including their terms and conditions, including pensionary matters, fell within the embrace of authority of the Province because under the concept of Provincial Autonomy, the Province was free from outside control and interference and also was well within its rights to follow and pursue any scheme/Notification or any policy from any date, as it deemed appropriate. Appeal filed by appellant was dismissed. (b) Words and phrases- -'Autonomous' and 'autonomy'-Definition. Black's Law Dictionary 11th Edition and Advanced Law Lexicon 4th Edition ref. (c) Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983- -Art. 9-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 175-Findings of Mohtasib/ Ombudsman-Scope and nature-Such findings were of recommendatory nature and not a judgment/decision-Performance of quasi-judicial functions by (the Mohtasib/Ombudsman) itself did not convert an authority into a Court-In order to constitute a Court in stricto sensu, it should have power to give a decision or a definite judgment, which had finality and authoritativeness-Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib was neither a Court nor a judicial Tribunal within the scope of Art. 175 of the Constitution. Shafaatullah Qureshi v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 142 and Dr. Zahid Javed v. Dr. Tahir Riaz Chaudhary and others PLD 2016 SC 637 ref.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: PTA matter: Challanges ban on TikTok. Seeks reasoning behind the ban

Summary: Seeking direction to setaside the impugned notification dated 25.2.19 and 19.8.19 and also seeks to restore the petitioner admission and to finalize the process of degree.