Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199-Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120-Constitutional petition-Mala fide-Onus to prove-While attributing mala fide against any person seeking enforcement of fundamental rights as guaranteed under the Constitution a great responsibility is cast upon such objector to establish such mala fide either on the face of record or through some concrete and undisputed material before the Court convincing enough to accept such allegation of mala fide-Mere allegation of mala fide, in absence of any factual or lawful basis, cannot be considered as a sole ground for dismissing a Constitutional petition without examining merits of the case. (b) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3-Constitutional petition-Appointment of a person to public office-Quo warranto, writ of-"Limitation"and"laches"-Distinction-Limitation is provided under Limitation Act, 1908, or under a particular law-Principle relating to"limitation"and of"laches"are different and distinct-Period of limitation creates a substantial right in favour of succeeding party, therefore, the same cannot be overlooked or condoned to the disadvantage of succeeding party and to favour a defaulting party unless strong and valid reason for delay beyond the control of party have been explained-While examining laches, particularly in the case of Constitutional petition of quo warranto under Art. 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution requiring or calling a person holding public office to show under what authority of law he/she claims to hold that office, the delay does not operate as a bar for the reason that authority of Court to examine validity of an appointment to a public office, on Constitutional and legal grounds cannot be curtailed on technicalities or delay in bringing such cause before the Court-Delay, if any, requiring Court to make judicial review of appointment of a person to a public office does not operate as a bar and to dismiss such Constitutional petition on the sole ground of laches-In case of writ of quo warranto, cause of action is a recurring one, as the holder of public office continues to hold such office until he retires or vacates public office, therefore, it can be called any question during such period when he continues to occupy such public office-In a writ of quo warranto message is more important than the messenger, therefore, conduct or antecedent of a petitioner become subservient to the cause of justice and authority of High Court to make a judicial review in respect of appointment of a person to public office. (c) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art.199(1)(b)(ii)-Quo warranto, writ of-Object, scope and purpose-Purpose of providing writ of quo warranto under Art.199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution is to protect sanctity of public office by safeguarding against unlawful appointment and to provide judicial remedy to be invoked by any person, not necessarily an aggrieved party, a whistle blower, to examine as to under what authority of law such person claims to hold that office. (d) Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)- -Ss. 145, 146 & 148-Election Tribunal-Proceedings-Scope-Proceedings before Election Tribunal are judicial in nature as it determines rights of a party through inquiry, recording of evidence in appropriate cases and to decide election disputes after hearing parties judicially in accordance with law. (e) Words and phrases- -"Quasi-judicial"-Connotation-Expression ‘quasi-judicial’ has been termed to be one which stands midway a judicial and an administrative function-Test whether an authority is quasi-judicial is (i) that the body of person must have legal authority, (ii) authority must be given to determine rights of the subjects or citizens, and (iii) such body should have the duty to act judicially. Prem and Saharay’s Judicial Dictionary of words and phrases; K J Aiyer’s [A Complete Law Lexicon] Thirteenth Edition; Words and Phrases Permanent Edition Volume 35A by West Publishing Co. and Boord v. Maurer, 22 A.2d 905, 906, 343 Pa. 315 rel. (f) Constitution of Pakistan- -Arts. 199 (1)(b)(ii), 207 (2), 213 & 218-Constitutional petition-Quo warranto, writ of-Election Commission-Appointment-Bar of two years-Petitioner assailed appointments of four provincial members to Election Commission of Pakistan out of them three were retired judges of respective High Courts and one was a retired bureaucrat-Plea raised by petitioner was that three members had been appointed before expiry of two years from their retirement and the bureaucrat was an accused under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999-Validity-Office of Election Commission of Pakistan was a ‘quasi-judicial office’ therefore, bar of expiration of two years in terms of Art. 207(2) of the Constitution did not attract in appointment of retried judges of Supreme Court and High Court-Writ of quo-warranto could not be issued against three members who retired as judges of different High Courts on the ground of their appointment made before expiration of two years from the date when they ceased to hold office as Judges of High Courts-High Court declined to issue writ of quo-warranto against fourth member who was retired bureaucrat as no substantial Constitutional or legal ground was agitated nor any sufficient material or evidence was produced in support of allegations of corruption-High Court declined to conduct any inquiry or to make any probe into the allegations leveled against the retired bureaucrat while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199(1)(b)(ii)of the Constitution-Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 416; Muhammad Hanif Abbasi v. Imran Khan Niazi PLD 2018 SC 189; Ibrahim v. The Settlement Commissioner and others 1980 CLC 1245; Muhammad Yaseen v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2012 SC 132; In the matter of Human rights Case No3654/2018 regarding appointment of Managing Director, Pakistan Television Corporation 2019 SCMR 1; Asghar Hussain v. Election Commission of Pakistan PLD 1968 SC 387; Al-Iblagh Ltd. v. The Copyright Board 1985 SCMR 758; Trading Corporation of Pakistan v. Pak Agro Forestry Corp. 2000 SCMR 1703; Sardar Muhammad v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2013 Lah. 343; Rashid Latif v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2014 Sindh 135; The Federal Government v. Ayyan Ali 2017 SCMR 1179; Justice (R) Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi and another v. Aam Log Ittehad and others C.P. No.18 of 2019; Aftab Shaban Mirani and others v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others PLD 2008 SC 779; Raja Shaukat Aziz Bhatti v. Major (R) Iftikhar Mahmood Kiani and others PLD 2018 SC 578; Shaikh Riaz-ul-Haq and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2013 SC 501; Major (Retd.) Abdul Rauf Khan v. Justice (Retd.) Salah-ud-Din Mirza Provincial Ombudsman, Sindh and another 1998 CLC 1225 Human rights Case No.3654 of 2018 and 2019 SCMR 1 ref. Petitioner No.2 in person. Khilji Bilal, Assistant Attorney General along with Abdullah Hinjrah, Law Officer of Respondent No.1 for Federation.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: -----Seeking direction to set aside the impugned notice dated 20.05.2020 regarding stoppage of further admission in the Dental College of the petitioner (a) Medical Education – Provisional Recognition by Pakistan Medical Commission (PMC): —Pakistan Medical Commission Ordinance, 2019—Provisional Recognition—Legality and Continuation of Students' Education—Doctrine of De Facto—Scope and Application: The PMC Ordinance, 2019 was declared unconstitutional by the Islamabad High Court in Saira Rubab Nasir v. President of Pakistan (W.P. No. 3800/2019). As a result, all actions, orders, and decisions taken under the said Ordinance, including provisional recognition and permissions for medical and dental colleges to admit students, were deemed unlawful. However, recognizing the consequences on students' education, the court allowed ongoing students to continue their studies until a fresh inspection and recognition process was completed by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC). (b) Students' Rights – Continuation of Education Pending Fresh Inspection: —Right to Education—Student Welfare—Public Notice by PM&DC (20.05.2020): It would be inequitable and disruptive for students already admitted under provisional recognition to be transferred to other medical and dental colleges, especially when there exists a possibility that the colleges in question may fulfill PM&DC’s recognition criteria after re-inspection. Instead of causing disruption, students admitted during the disputed period are allowed to continue their education until a final decision is made post re-inspection. (c) Administrative Action – Inspection and Recognition of Medical Colleges: —Regulation 12, Medical and Dental Institutions (Recognition, Eligibility Criteria for Enhancement in Annual Admissions and Accreditation Standards) Regulations, 2018: The inspection and evaluation of medical and dental institutions must strictly follow Regulation 12 of the 2018 Regulations, ensuring transparency, objectivity, and adherence to established criteria for recognition. PM&DC must consider this regulatory framework while conducting fresh inspections of the petitioner colleges. (d) Adjustment of Students in Recognized Institutions – Regulatory Compliance: —Regulation 7(2), 2018 Regulations—Student Adjustment in Recognized Medical Colleges: Admitting students into recognized medical institutions beyond their sanctioned strength violates Regulation 7(2) of the 2018 Regulations, which limits annual student intake to 350 students for public-sector institutions and 150 for private-sector institutions. Adjusting students from unrecognized institutions without available vacant seats would amount to regulatory non-compliance. (e) Judicial Precedent – No Immediate Closure of Provisional Institutions: —Pakistan Medical and Dental Council v. Ziauddin Medical University (PLD 2007 SC 323): Even though provisional recognition has no legal basis under the PM&DC Ordinance or Regulations, the Supreme Court in Ziauddin Medical University refrained from ordering the immediate closure of institutions with provisional recognition, allowing them time to address deficiencies and undergo re-evaluation. -----Key Principles Established: Provisional recognition granted under the PMC Ordinance, 2019, is unlawful but students’ education should not suffer due to administrative irregularities. PM&DC must inspect medical colleges afresh under applicable regulations before deciding on their recognition. Students admitted under provisional recognition are allowed to continue their education until the inspection process concludes. Adjustment of students into recognized medical colleges must comply with sanctioned seat limits under the 2018 Regulations. The welfare and continuity of education for admitted students remain paramount during the transition process. -----Disposition: The petitioner colleges shall be inspected afresh by PM&DC in accordance with the applicable regulations. Students already admitted in the petitioner colleges will continue their education until PM&DC decides on the colleges' recognition after re-inspection. Petitioners may approach PM&DC for grievances in light of the judgment in Saira Rubab Nasir’s case.

Summary: Admittedly, the property owned by the petitioner was not the subject matter of suit No. 124/1, thus, there was no decree against the petitioner s property. Record reveals that in suit No.124/1, no decree for partition was passed on the basis of which the specific portion of the property was to be handed over to the decree holder. Record also transpires that the decree for declaration was to the extent of shares in the joint property and as per the provision of Order XI Rule 35 (2) of CPC, only symbolicpossession would be handed over to the decree holder.The main thrust of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner was that under the garb of decree in suit No.124/1, the petitioner s owned and possessed property is intended to be taken from him. In such a situation, the remedy has already been provided by the legislature in the code of Civil Procedure 1908, under the provision of Order XXI Rule 99, 100 and 101of C.P.C, whereunder the petitioner could approach to the Executing Court bycontending that no decree has been passed regarding her property but in no case the contention of the petitioner could be treated under section 12 (2) of CPC. The provisions of Order XXI Rule 99, 100 & 101 are reproduced as under: - 99. Resistance or obstruction by bona fide claimant. Where the Court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned by any person (other than the judgment debtor) claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property on his own account or on account of some person other thanthe judgment debtor, the Court shall make an order dismissing the application.100. Dispossession by decree holder or purchaser. (1) Where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession. (2) The Court shall fix a day for investigating the matter and shall summon the party against whom the application is made to appear and answer the same.101. Bona fide claimant to be restored to possession. Where the Court is satisfied that the applicant was in possession of the property on his own account or on account of some person other than the judgment debtor, it shall direct that the applicant be put into possession of the property.Likewise, in case of possession from joint property the mode of possession would be under Order XI Rule 35(2), which is reproduced as under: -Rule 35(2) Where a decree is for the joint possession of immoveable property, such possession shall be delivered by affixing a copy of the warrant in some conspicuous place on the property and proclaiming by beat of drum, or other customary mode, at some convenient place, the substance of the decree.Secondly, There is no cavil with the proposition that an application under section 12 (2) of CPC should be treated as a suit but it equally settled principle of law that in every application under section 12(2) there is no need to frame issues and record evidence, rather it depends upon the facts of case to case. In the case of Mst. Shabana Irfan versus Muhammad Sham Khan and other 2009 SCMR 40, it was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that: - Needless to add that petition under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. can be decided summarily by thelearned Court, which has passed the final judgment, decree or order in dispute, when there are admitted facts, documents between the parties. There is no need to prolong the litigation, when the case ex facie appears to have not been filed in a wrong jurisdiction, and when fraud or misrepresentation was not involved therein the case or in the transaction.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Factual controversy---Alternateremedy---Contention of petitioner was that respondents were interfering into his possessionover the suit property---Validity---Controversial questions were involved in the matter,which could not be resolved while exercising constitutional jurisdiction---Authenticity ofdocuments produced by the petitioner could only be determined and established before CivilCourt after opportunity of hearing to both the parties---Petitioner had alternate remedy andconstitutional petition was not maintainable---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court couldnot be invoked in all matters as a matter of right rather such jurisdiction had certaincircumventions---High Court would not indulge in investigation of disputed question offacts, which required evidence---Extraordinary jurisdiction was intended for providing anexpeditious remedy in a case where illegality of impugned action could be establishedwithout any inquiry into complicated or disputed facts---Party invoking constitutionaljurisdiction had to establish clear right which should be beyond any doubt and controversy---Legal right and entitlement of petitioner were controversial and such disputed questions offact could not be decided in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Constitutionalpetition was dismissed in limine, accordingly.Rana Aftab Ahmed Khan v. Muhammad Ajmal PLD 2010 SC 1066 and Secretary tothe Government of the Punjab v. Ghulam Nabi PLD 2001 SC 415 rel.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss.22-A, 22-B & 155---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 427 & 504---Powers of Ex-officioJustice of Peace---Scope---Information in non-cognizable cases---Intentional insult withintent to provoke breach of peace---Scope---Petitioner assailed order passed by Ex-officioJustice of Peace whereby SHO was directed to place complaint of petitioner before theMagistrate---Allegations levelled in the complaint, prima facie, attracted Ss. 504 & 427,P.P.C., which as per Column 3, Chapter XXII of Sched. II to the Criminal Procedure Code,1898 were, non-cognizable offences---Station House Officer of Police Station was requiredunder S.155(1), Cr.P.C., to enter the substance of such information in the relevant book keptat the police station and refer the informant to the Magistrate---Constitutional petition wasdismissed, in circumstances.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.155---Information in non-cognizable cases---Scope---Section 155, Cr.P.C., providedthat for recording information relating to commission of non-cognizable offence a book isprescribed known as "Roznamcha or Station Diary", in which information relating tocommission of non-cognizable offence is entered---Generally police would not initiate anyaction and the complainant or informant, after having a copy of the said report is sent away,and if, the Station House Officer (SHO) deems it fit to initiate investigation then undersubsection (2) of S.155, Cr.P.C., police has to take permission of the Magistrate---Section155(2), Cr.P.C., requiring order of a Magistrate for investigation of a non-cognizable offenceis mandatory in nature, if any arrest is to be made then it can only be made after obtainingwarrant of arrest from the Magistrate as required under S.155(3), Cr.P.C

Summary: Background:Tariq Saeed (petitioner), a public servant, was posted as XEN (BPS-18) in Zila Council, Lahore.Allegations of corruption and corrupt practices were leveled against him, leading to an inquiry initiated on 12.09.2006.The inquiry was upgraded to investigation with the approval of the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau (NAB), on 19.10.2010.During the investigation, it was alleged that the petitioner amassed disproportionate assets and held bank accounts under his and his wife's names.A reference (No. 7/2015) was filed against the petitioner under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.The petitioner was charged and tried in Accountability Court No.1, Lahore, where he was sentenced to seven years imprisonment and fined Rs.1,63,00,000/-.The Lahore High Court upheld the trial court's decision, prompting the petitioner to file this petition.---Issues:Whether the prosecution successfully proved the allegations of corruption against the petitioner.Whether the petitioner's sentence and fine were appropriate considering his age and health condition.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The courts below thoroughly examined the evidence and found the accusations against the petitioner to be well-founded.The petitioner's argument regarding the production of photocopies was dismissed as unsubstantiated, as the evidence was attested and available for scrutiny.The petitioner's involvement in previous cases of corruption further supported the courts' findings.Despite acknowledging the petitioner's age and poor health, the court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence from seven to five years.The fine and confiscation of assets were maintained.The decision was based on the principle of upholding justice while considering the petitioner's circumstances.---Citations/Precedents:Case of "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF alias Chaudhry versus THE STATE" (1994 SCMR 667)