Summary: (a) Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance (LXX of 1979)- -S. 4-Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Rules, 1983, R. 3(i)-Management of Zoo-Responsibility-In Islamabad Capital Territory, management of Zoo is within the domain of the Board of Management constituted under Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979, and such is one of its crucial functions-Zoo, its management and all other matters relating thereto fall within the jurisdiction and competence of Board of Management constituted under Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979. (b) Interpretation of statutes- -Beneficial statute must not be construed too restrictively, rather should be given the widest possible interpretation. (c) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (XI of 1890)- -S. 3-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 428 & 429-Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance (LXX of 1979) S.4-Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Rules, 1983, R. 3(i)-Cruelty to animals-Animals in captivity-Management of Zoo-Petitioners were aggrieved of maltreatment of authorities with animals kept in captivity in Zoo at Islamabad-Validity-Animals in Zoo had been subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering-Conditions in Zoo, described in various reports had spoken volumes for distress, pain and sufferings of all animals-Authorities responsible exposed themselves to be proceeded against under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890-Animals in Zoo were public property and offences under Ss.428 & 429, P.P.C. could be invoked if the ingredients stood fulfilled-Zoo at Islamabad did not have facilities or resources to meet behavioral, social and physiological needs of the animals kept in captivity under inappropriate and illegal conditions-Animals held in captivity in the Zoo were kept in conditions that tantamount to subjecting them to unnecessary pain and sufferings, violating provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890 and Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979-There were neither adequate facilities nor resources to provide living conditions that would meet the behavioral, social and physiological needs of animals-High Court directed the Board constituted under Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979, to relocate all animals to their respective sanctuaries-High Court further directed the Board to take over management of the Zoo-High Court directed Islamabad Metropolitan Corporation and Chief Commissioner to assist the Board till all animals were relocated-High Court restrained the Board from keeping any new animal in the Zoo till a reputable international agency/ organization, specializing in matters relating to zoological gardens would certify that facilities and resources were available to provide for behavioral, social and physiological needs of each species of animals-Federal Government was also directed to consider advising respective Provincial Governments to include in curriculum of Islamic Studies, the teachings of Islam regarding importance of taking care of animals, their welfare and well-being as highlighted in Ahadiths and the Quran-High Court directed the media to consider educating and informing general public regarding manner in which creation of Allah i.e. animal species had to be treated-Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Messers Mustafa Impex, Karachi and others v. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others PLD 2016 SC 808; State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Chairman and others v. Mst. Sardar Begum and others 2017 SCMR 999; N. R. Nair and others v. Union of India and others AIR 2000 Kerala 340; Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and others (2014) 7 SCC 547; Dr Manilal v. Valliyate, The Constituted Attorney of People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. The State of Maharashtra through Chief Wildlife Warden and others Writ Petition No.2662 of 2013; Nithin Singvi v. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests and others Writ Petition No.06 of 2016; National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and another [2016] ZACC 46; Muhammad Arif v. S.H.O. City Police, Depalpur and 5 others PLD 1994 Lah. 521; Ghulam Asghar Gadehi and others v. Senior Superintendent of Police Dadu and 4 others PLD 2018 Sindh 169; Province of Sindh and others v. Lal Khan Chandio and others PLD 2016 SC 48; Government of Punjab and others v. Aamir Zahoor ul Haq and others PLD 2016 SC 421; Surrah An-Nahl 16:5; An-Nahl 16:7; Surrah An-Nahl 16:8; Surrah Al Haj 22:36; Surrah Al-Anam 6:38; Surrah An-Noor 24:41; Surrah Ar-Rahman 55:8-10 and Ms Shehla Zia and others v. WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693 rel. (d) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (XI of 1890)- -S. 3-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 428 & 429-Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance (LXX of 1979), S.4-Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9-Right to life-Animals, rights of-Wildlife is the most essential foundation of healthy ecosystems-Threat of climate change and its ensuring devastating consequences for human race can only be avoided if environmental degradation and damage to ecosystems and biodiversity can be stopped-Protection and preservation of wildlife species is a precondition for meeting challenges that stem from damage to ecosystems and degradation of environment-Welfare, well-being and survival of animal species is foundational principle for survival of human race on this planet-Without wildlife species there will be no human on this planet-Neglect of welfare and well-being of animal species, or any treatment of an animal that subjects it to unnecessary pain or suffering, has implications for right of life of humans guaranteed under Art. 9 of the Constitution-Relationship of treatment of animals and right to life of humans make it an obligation of the State and its authorities to jealously guard against cruel and illegal treatment of animals-Protecting, preserving and conserving animals species and preventing them from harm is a Constitutional obligation of the State and its authorities. (e) Words and phrases- -"Legal right"-Meaning-Legal right means"a right related to or recognized by law". Eleventh Edition rel. (f) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (XI of 1890)- -S. 3-Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance (LXX of 1979) S.4-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 9-Animals' natural rights-Scope-Animals' natural rights of not to be treated in a manner that subjects them to unnecessary pain and suffering have been recognized in Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890-Constitutional and statutory obligation of the State and its functionaries to ensure that such rights are not infringed-Such is a natural right of every animal to be respected because it is a living being, possessing precious gift of 'life'-Humans cannot arrogate to themselves a right or prerogative of enslaving or subjugating an animal because the latter has been born free for some specific purposes-Natural right of an animal not to be tortured or unnecessarily killed because gift of life it possesses is precious and its disrespect undermines the respect of the Creator-Right to life of humans is dependent on the welfare, well-being, preservation and conservation of all animals species-Any treatment in violation of the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890, or subjecting an animal to unnecessary pain or suffering, is an infringement of the right to life guaranteed under Art. 9 of the Constitution-Destruction and loss of habitat also violates fundamental right to life of a human-State is responsible to ensure that no animal is treated in violation of the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890 and Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979-High Court is vested with jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition or mandamus, as the case may be in order to refrain an authority from doing anything not permitted by law or to compel them to do anything not permitted by law or to compel them to do anything the law requires them to do. Sh. Ansar Aziz, Mayor, Metropolitan Corporation, Islamabad. Ms. Naheed S. Durrani, Secretary Ministry of Climate Change. Sulyman Shah, Joint Secretary (Admin), Ministry of Climate Change. Syed Ali Raza Zadi, Dy. Director (Law), Ministry of Climate Change. Anisur Rehman, Chairman, Islamabad Wildlife Management Board. Rana Tahir Mehmood, Director Environment, MCI. Bilal Khilji, Dy. Director Zoo. Ali Asghar, Dy. Director (Law), MCI.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Power and scope of Court under Section 491 Cr.P.C---The orders which can be passed by the High Court in the matters of unlawful detention in reference to Rules & Orders of the Lahore High Court Volume-V, Chapter-4 Part-F----The importance of Daily Diary in reference to Rule 22.48 of Police Rules, 1934 and under Article 167 of Police Order, 2002----Relevancy of Articles 9,10 & 14 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 with police investigation and unlawful detention----The status of bailiff----United Nation Convention against Torture and its applicability to police investigation.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------Ss. 32 & 33---Articles connected with narcotics---Procedure for confiscation---Scope---Appellant assailed the judgment passed by Trial Court to the extent of confiscation of vehicleused in transportation of narcotics---Sections 32 & 33 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act,1997, empowered the Trial Court to order confiscation of vehicle used in trafficking ofnarcotic---Vehicle could not be confiscated unless it was proved that owner was aware thathis vehicle was being used in the crime and in that respect burden was placed on theprosecution---Record of the case was silent as to whether any query or probe was madeduring investigation or during trial or any substantial proof was brought on record by theprosecution about involvement of the owner of the vehicle or his knowledge of transportationof narcotics---Appeal was allowed, impugned judgment to the extent of confiscation ofvehicle was set aside and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for release of vehiclesubject to verification of ownership from Registration Authority.2010 SCMR 1181 and 2011 SCMR 1471 ref.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 520 & 517---Order for disposal of property regarding which offence committed---Stayof order under Ss. 517, 518 or 519, Cr.P.C.---Scope---Where the case in which an orderunder S. 517, Cr.P.C. was passed in itself is pending before a Court of appeal or revision,that Court can modify, annul or alter such an order under S. 520, Cr.P.C.---Section 520,Cr.P.C., empowers superior Court to interfere with an order passed by a lower Court underSs. 517, 518 or 519, Cr.P.C., but it does not in any way restrict the Trial Court from passingan order consequent to and in compliance with the order of Superior Court, but where nosuch case is pending then an application under said section lies to the Court to which appealsor revisions ordinarily lie from the order of subordinate Court under S. 517, Cr.P.C.AIR 1942 Sindh 1; Sardara v. Boota PLD 1950 Lah. 97; Ghulam Akbar v. The Stateand another PLD 1958 Lah. 212; Ahmad Bakhsh v. The State and another PLD 1966 Lah.918; Jalal Khan alias Jalley Khan v. The State and another PLD 1975 Lah. 45 and Manzoor Hussain Jatoi v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 500 ref.

Summary: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (XXVII of 1997)------Ss. 2(n) & 23--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-A &341--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Lodging of FIR--Application for transfer of case to ordinaryCourt--Rejected--Abduction & demand of reason--Jurisdiction--Question of whether case was triable by ATC isto be resolved in light of provisions of Act and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898--Challenge to--During courseof investigation after recording statements of alleged abductees, prosecution built up its case that petitioner andco-accused have been claiming ransom from abductee--The alleged offence prima facie attracts provision ofsection 2(n) of ATA which is exclusively triable by Anti-Terrorism Court as provided in Third Schedule of saidAct--Anti-Terrorism Court has rightly assumed jurisdiction and framed charge against petitioner-- we could notfind any merit in instant petition for interference in impugned order--Petition dismissed. [Para 6 & 7] A, B & CPLD 2020 SC 61 ref.

Summary: Bail denied ---- Background:Zahoor Khan, the petitioner, along with a co-accused, is accused of fatally targeting Yaheer Shah on 25.10.2014 at 18:00 hours within the jurisdiction of Police Station Katling District Mardan. The alleged motive behind the crime revolves around a piece of land. Despite a significant lapse of time, Zahoor Khan was arrested more than half a decade later. The autopsy report confirms that Yaheer Shah sustained six entry wounds.---Issues:The primary issue before the court is whether Zahoor Khan should be granted bail considering the circumstances of the case, including the delay in arrest, the nature of the crime, and the evidence presented.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court, after hearing arguments and examining the record, declined to grant bail to Zahoor Khan. The court noted that the conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence, though seemingly irrelevant, cannot be disregarded given the extended absence from the law. The ocular account, supported by medical evidence and investigative conclusions, constitutes "reasonable grounds" under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which impedes the petitioner's release. Since there is no justification for further investigation, the court concluded that the impugned views are within the bounds of the law and do not warrant interference. Consequently, the petition for bail is dismissed, and leave is declined.---Citations/Precedents:Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a non-subject, sought permission to purchase property in Tehsil Dudyal, AJ&K. Initially, the Commissioner of Mirpur granted permission to purchase a built-up house not exceeding two kanal in Tehsil Mirpur. This permission was later amended by the Assistant Secretary Board of Revenue to allow the purchase of built-up property in Tehsil Dudyal. The petitioner then purchased one kanal of land and applied for registration of the sale-deed. The sub-Registrar of Dudyal refused the registration on grounds that the land could not be transferred to a non-state subject and that the amending orders were issued without lawful authority. The petitioner appealed to the District Judge, who upheld the amending orders. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the vires of Section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Alienation of Land Act, 1995 Bik., and the amending orders. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, leading to this petition for leave to appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the definition of "state subject" under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, includes the petitioner. 2- Whether the land transfer restrictions under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Alienation of Land Act, 1995 Bik., were correctly applied. 3- Whether the amending orders allowing the petitioner to purchase land in Tehsil Dudyal were issued lawfully. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir granted leave to appeal, noting that important legal propositions of public importance were involved that required an authoritative judgment. Specifically, the Court will examine: The interpretation of the term "state subject" as defined in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, and the late Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Notification dated 20 April 1927. The application and interpretation of Section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Alienation of Land Act, 1995 Bik. The lawfulness of the amending orders issued by the Assistant Secretary Board of Revenue. ----Citations/Precedents: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974 Council Notification No.I-L/84, dated 20 April 1927 Azad Jammu and Kashmir Alienation of Land Act, 1995 Bik.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, served as Assistant Education Officer in the Education Department and was arrested on 19.05.2010 on charges including forgery and corruption under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001. He was granted bail on 15.06.2010 by the Ehtesab Court No.1, Muzaffarabad. After his release, he sought readjustment in his job, presenting a judgment allegedly acquitting him, which was later found to be bogus. A reference was then filed against him for forgery and corruption. The petitioner sought dismissal of this reference under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., but his application was rejected by the Ehtesab Court and the High Court. However, this Court quashed the reference on procedural grounds, specifically that it was not filed by the competent authority. Despite this, the Ehtesab Bureau issued new notices to the petitioner on 07.04.2019 and 19.04.2019, prompting him to file a writ petition for quashing these letters, which was dismissed by the High Court, leading to this petition for leave to appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Ehtesab Bureau's new notices to the petitioner violate the previous judgment of this Court. 2- Whether the Ehtesab Bureau has the authority to re-investigate the matter after the previous reference was quashed on procedural grounds. 3- Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition without considering the specific legal points raised by the petitioner. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir granted leave to appeal, recognizing that important legal propositions of public importance were involved. The Court acknowledged that the arguments of the petitioner's counsel were partially supported by the record and that further examination of these issues was warranted. Specifically, the Court will examine: The validity of the Ehtesab Bureau's actions in issuing new notices in light of the previous judgment. The procedural and substantive authority of the Ehtesab Bureau to re-initiate proceedings against the petitioner. The High Court's handling of the writ petition and whether it appropriately addressed the legal arguments presented. ----Citations/Precedents: Sections 109, 409, 471, 419, 420, 467, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) Section 11 of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 Section 265-K, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) The Court's decision to grant leave to appeal emphasizes the need for a thorough review of the legal and procedural aspects of the case to ensure justice and adherence to legal standards.

Summary: Background: The petitioner was appointed as a Primary Teacher on an ad-hoc basis. On 21.02.2018, the respondents advertised several posts, including 16 posts of Primary Teachers (Male) for Union Council Samahni, District Bhimber, and 9 posts of Junior Teachers General Line (Male) for Constituency No.6, Samahni, District Bhimber. The petitioner, being eligible, applied for these posts and successfully passed the NTS test. Despite his qualifications, the respondents intended to cancel his ad-hoc appointment. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court to restrain the respondents from canceling his ad-hoc appointment and to confirm his appointment against any vacant post. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, leading to this petition for leave to appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner's ad-hoc appointment should be protected and confirmed against any vacant post due to his successful qualification in the NTS test. 2- Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition without considering the Government's previous practice of confirming ad-hoc/temporary teachers who qualified in the NTS test. 3- Whether similarly placed employees have been confirmed against vacant posts, and if so, whether the petitioner should receive the same treatment. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir granted leave to appeal, acknowledging that important propositions of public importance were involved that required an authoritative judgment. Specifically, the Court will examine: The legitimacy of the petitioner's claim for confirmation against a vacant post based on his successful qualification in the NTS test. The consistency of the respondents' actions with the Government's previous practice of confirming ad-hoc/temporary teachers who qualified in the NTS test. The implications of the respondents' acknowledgment of the petitioner's version in their written statement. ----Citations/Precedents: Notification dated 28.03.2018 (pertaining to the confirmation of ad-hoc/temporary Primary/Junior Teachers who qualified in the NTS test) The Court's decision to grant leave to appeal underscores the necessity for a detailed examination of the legal and factual aspects to ensure fair treatment and adherence to legal precedents in the confirmation of ad-hoc teachers.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199(1)(a)- Constitutional petition-Maintainability-"Aggrieved person"-Scope-For purposes of maintainability of a Constitutional petition, it was necessary for a party to become an"aggrieved person"or"aggrieved party"to show that his personal, pecuniary or property rights had been adversely affected by another person's action or by a court's decree or judgment-Person could be said to be aggrieved only when a person was denied a legal right by someone who had a legal duty to perform relating to the right-Not only must there be a right but a justiciable right in existence, to give juris-diction to the High Court in the matter. Zaheeruddin Sheikh and 30 others v. United Bank Ltd. 2002 CLC 147; Syed Mufeed Shah and another v. Principal, Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and 4 others 2003 CLC 1348; Muhammad Idrees v. Province of Punjab through Collector District Sialkot and others 2014 CLC 130; Messrs Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Pakistan, through the Commission of Income Tax, Lahore Range, Lahore and 7 others PLD 1978 SC 151; Nisar Ahmed and 2 others v. Additional Secretary, Food and Agriculture, Government of Pakistan and 3 others 1979 SCMR 299; Anjuman Araian Bhera v. Abdul Rashid and others PLD 1982 SC 308; Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan Islamabad and 8 others 1994 CLC 2318; Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore PLD 1969 SC 223; Montgomery Flour and General Mills Ltd., Montgomery v. Director, Food Purchases, West Pakistan and others PLD 1957 (W.P. Lahore 914; Dr. Imran Khattak and another v. Ms. Sofia Waqar Khattak, PSO to Chief Justice and others 2014 SCMR 122; Hafiz Hamadullah v. Saifullah Khan and others PLD 2007 SC 52; N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission and others v. Muhammad Arif and others 2011 SCMR 848 and Ishaq Masih v. District Coordination Officer and others 2017 PLC (C.S.) 528 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199(1)(a)- Constitutional petition-Maintainability-"Aggrieved person"-Locus standi of petitioner-Scope-Civil works-Terms and conditions of bid documents-Whether petitioner, who neither obtained tender documents nor participated in the bidding process would come within the purview of"aggrieved person"-Held, that it was sine qua non for invoking jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution, that the petitioner was an aggrieved person and also had locus standi-In the present case the petitioner-association did not participate in the bid, as such, neither the petitioner was a bidder nor a potential bidder, so it could not be considered an"aggrieved person"within the meaning of Art.199 of the Constitution-Petitioner also did not have the locus standi to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court-Even otherwise, the petitioner failed to establish any violation of law and rules, thus was not an aggrieved person on such account also-From the perusal of the record, it was clear that the bidders, who had actually participated in the bid process, in presence of the terms and conditions, issued by the respondent-Engineering Council, for the construction works, did not raise any objection in the existing terms and conditions of bid documents-Constitutional petition was dismissed as being not maintainable. Messrs Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore Range and 7 others PLD 1978 SC 151; Hafiz Hamid Ullah v. Saifullah and others PLD 2007 SC 52; N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission and others v. Muhammad Arif and others 2011 SCMR 844; Pakistan Pharmacists Association v. Province of Punjab and 3 others 2018 PLC (C.S.) 1063; High Court Bar Association, Rawalpindi through Taufiq Asif, President and Members Executive Committee v. Punjab Bar Council through Vice Chairman and others PLD 2014 Lah. 369; Pakistan Medical Association through President v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of National Health Services Regulations and Coordination, Islamabad and 5 others 2016 PLC (C.S.) 676; Pakistan Steel Re-rolling Mills Association v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1964 Lah. 138 and The Pakistan Steel Re-Rolling Mills Association, Lahore v. The Province of West Pakistan, through Secretary, Co-Operation, Labour and Social Welfare Department, Lahore PLD 1966 SC 72 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199-Constitutional petition-Maintainability-Pre-requisites for a petitioner to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution stated. For a petitioner to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, it had to satisfy the following: (i) That he had a locus standi to invoke constitutional jurisdiction being an"aggrieved person" as his right was denied or was not given to him; (ii) That his right was infringed and the right so infringed was justiciable right; and (iii) That he had no alternate, adequate remedy for redressal of his grievance except a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. (d) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199-Constitutional petition-Maintainability-Alternate remedy-Scope-High Court before exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution must be satisfied about the non-availability, or inefficacy of alternate remedy provided under law-Once it was shown to the satisfaction of the High Court that the alternate remedy was expedient and effective, then the Court would be reluctant to exercise writ jurisdiction, which was not meant to bypass the authority to render such hierarchy as redundant and superfluous-High Court observed that the Supreme Court in a number of cases has deprecated the tendency to invoke writ jurisdiction (of the High Court), bypassing remedy provided under the relevant statute. Match Company Ltd. v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act 2003 SCMR 1492 ref.