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)
Muhammad Farooq VS Full Bench NIRC etc
Summary: Against impugned order dated 28.6.19 passed by the Learned full bench NIRC whereby appeal against order dated 13.1.12 passed by the Learned single member NIRC has been accepted (order of single member set aside)
Mst. Shazia Kauser VS The State, etc.
Summary: Criminal revision, suo moto, offence u/s 302/34 PPC
Bibi Quresh V. The Government of Balochistan, through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs Department and 3 others,
Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Pendency of civil litigation---Alternate remedy, availability of---Effect---Petitioner sought order restraining therespondents from dispossessing her from the disputed property---Validity---Petitioner hadalready filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the civil court and therewas hardly any plausible basis or explanation to seek indulgence in the extraordinaryjurisdiction of the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution---Interference inconstitutional jurisdiction could not be solicited in the presence of an adequate alternateremedy---Constitutional petition was dismissed.Farzand Rana Naqvi and 5 others v. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and others2004 SCMR 400 and Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and others v. Ahmed Ali and another2007 SCMR 38 ref.Mian Muhammad Yousaf and another v. Lahore Development Authority throughDirector General, LDA and 5 others PLD 2001 SC 393 rel.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Scope---Pendency of civil litigation---Effect---Where the aggrieved party has already initiated civil litigation, the invocation ofconstitutional jurisdiction will not be justified.Mian Muhammad Yousaf and another v. Lahore Development Authority throughDirector General, LDA and 5 others PLD 2001 SC 393 rel.
Muhammad Naseem V. Vice-Chancellor Bolan University of Health Sciences, Quetta through Registrar and another,
Summary: Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Constitutional petition---Educational Institution---Admission---Merit list---Admission to medical college---Petitioner was aggrieved of merit list prepared foradmissions to medical colleges---Validity---Selection process was finalized and academicsession had started---Petitioner was not vigilant and she could not be permitted to takebenefit of her own lapses nor selected candidates could be deprived of their legitimateadmissions---Jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution was meant forcorrecting jurisdictional errors in orders and proceedings of tribunals and executiveauthorities---No illegality or error in the process of selection of candidates by authoritieswarranting interference by High Court was noticed---Constitutional petition was dismissed,in circumstances.
MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman Lahore and 3 others
Summary: Summary pending
OBAID JAMSHED vs THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending
NEELUM JHELUM HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT through General Manager Versus Sardar NASRULLAH KHAN and 14 others
Summary: PLJ 2020 SC (AJK) 6
----Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 - Article 42(10)
---Land Acquisition Act - Section 30
----Legal Issues:
--Compensation for Land Acquisition and Alternate Remedy - The respondents sought an income loss award and compensation related to the Neelum Jhelum Hydro Electric Project. Although compensation was initially awarded and subsequent claims by one of the respondents were rejected by the Collector, the respondent appealed through a writ petition, which the High Court accepted.
--Efficacy of Alternate Legal Remedy and Writ Jurisdiction - The court found that the proper course for disputing compensation would have been through a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. It emphasized that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 44 was improperly invoked, as the issue involved factual questions outside the purview of writ jurisdiction.
Collector’s Award and Judicial Oversight - The Supreme Court noted that Award No. 4/2010, which rejected further compensation claims, had not been adequately considered by the High Court.
--Ruling:
The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, ruling that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition when an alternate remedy was available. The Collector’s award was deemed binding, and the procedural approach to challenge it via writ jurisdiction was held improper.
--Judgment Result: Appeal accepted.
-----Background:
This case involves a dispute over compensation related to land acquired for the Neelum Jhelum Hydropower Project under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. The land was originally acquired in 2007, and compensation was paid to the landowner. Subsequently, a block factory operator who had rented the land received compensation for income loss through Award No. 4/2010. Another claimant, however, also sought compensation, alleging the establishment of a block factory and a crush plant on the same land. After the collector initially rejected this claim, the claimant appealed to higher authorities and eventually filed a writ petition, which was accepted by the High Court, directing the issuance of an income loss award. This appeal challenges that decision.
-----Issues:
1- Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation for income loss, despite the initial rejection by the collector.
-----2- Whether a writ petition was a valid remedy given the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
-----3- Whether the High Court erred by intervening in a factual matter typically outside the scope of writ jurisdiction.
----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:
The court held that the writ petition was not appropriate, as an alternate remedy was available. The High Court's directive to issue an award and provide compensation was overturned. The court reasoned that:
After a thorough inquiry, the collector had already decided on the claims and issued Award No. 4/2010, which included the rejection of the claimant’s application.
No new application could be entertained following this award, as it had already addressed the claims related to the disputed land.
The claimant's proper recourse was to file a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act rather than approaching the High Court, as factual disputes are outside the typical writ jurisdiction.
The appeal was accepted, setting aside the High Court's order and dismissing the writ petition.
-----Citations/Precedents:
Aurangzeb Through L.Rs. and others vs. Muhammad Jafar (2007 SCMR 236)
Bashir Ahmed vs. Ghulam Rasool (2011 SCMR 762)
Maj (Retd) BASHIR AHMED vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
Summary: Summary pending
MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN Versus Dr. IQBAL HAMEED
Summary: (a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)- -S. 15-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11-Eviction of tenant-Res judicata, principle of-Scope-New cause of action-Personal bona fide need of landlord-Petitioner/tenant contended that as eviction applications earlier filed by respondent's parents were dismissed so respondent/landlord could not move the eviction application under the principle of res judicata-Held, that the plea of res judicata would only be applicable in the rent jurisdiction if it was with reference to same cause of action-Cause of action, in rent jurisdiction, was subject to circumstances because the same, in fact, controlled the need of a man-Landlord, due to his circumstances, might not be in need of doing any business but changed circumstances could compel him to do a business; or even to part with failed business and to start a new one-Selection of business by the landlord, thus, was his sole prerogative, so also the choice of rented shop if he had more than one-Failure of a landlord in earlier eviction proceedings would not be sufficient to bring the plea of res judicata if he, otherwise, proved his personal bona fide need with reference to changed circumstances i.e. new cause of action-Proceedings, in the present case, initiated by the respondent, was with reference to an independent and fresh cause of action-High Court directed the petitioner to vacate the demised shop within six months, however, in case respondent would fail to establish his business within four months, rented shop would be returned to the petitioner-Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Shakeel Ahmed and another v. Muhammad Tariq Farogh and others 2010 SCMR 1925 ref. (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)- -S. 15-Eviction of tenant-Personal bona fide need of landlord-Co-owner (landlord) in the rented premises, right of-Scope-Earlier proceedings, regarding demised shop, were initiated by the respondent's father who was dead, thereby making his legal heirs, including the respondent, as one of the co-owners/co-sharers-All said legal heirs had given no objection to the respondent-Legally every co-owner had a right, in the rent jurisdiction, to agitate the plea of personal bona fide need irrespective of fact that tenancy was created by other co-sharer-Every co-sharer had his/her own circumstances and would have a right to establish the plea of personal bona fide need in respect of such premises-High Court directed the petitioner/tenant to vacate the demised shop within six months, however, in case respondent would fail to establish his business within four months, rented shop would be returned to the petitioner-Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Imran Qadir v. Roqiya Sultana and 7 others 2017 CLC Note 80 ref.
NAIMA TULLAH KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 184(3)-Matter regarding over charging of customers by K-Electric (utility company)-Electricity consumers of K-Electric had many grievances against the utility company regarding them being over charged for usage of electricity-Further there were grievances that electricity meters of K-Electric were defective and showed more consumption of electricity than the actual consumption and the whole system with which K-Electric operated was not fair or justifiable-If one consumer did not pay the electricity bill, the whole area was declared as a default area and electricity of the whole area was disconnected-Supreme Court observed that such state of affairs could not be allowed to continue and it had to be stopped for which the Federal Government was required to take action in such regard-Matter was adjourned. (b) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 184(3)-Matter regarding construction of Customs Club on an amenity plot-Customs Club had already been demolished pursuant to an order passed by the Supreme Court-Subject plot on which the club was constructed was an amenity plot and such plot could only be used for the public purposes and not for any private club-In any case, the Customs Club was being used for business purposes in that it was used as a Marriage Hall and was being rented out to private parties-As such it could not be a valid use of an amenity plot-Application was dismissed. (c) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 184(3)-Matter regarding quarters in P&T colony leased out to third parties-In the P&T colony, the Federal Government had constructed quarters for living of employees of P&T Department and such quarters were now claimed to have been leased to the applicants-Supreme Court had already passed an order on 9.5.2019 wherein it was observed that P&T Colony belonged to P&T Department, which was a Federal Government Department, and the leases in question were found to be totally illegal, void ab initio and were cancelled-No other view of the present matter could be taken except for the one taken by the Supreme Court in its previous order-Application was dismissed having become infructuous. In Attendance: