Summary: Seeks direction against respondents to drop re-investigation of inquiry proceedings

Summary: 1.Under section 8-A of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, an order that is appealable to the High Court does not include an order dismissing the complaint. However, the appeal can be converted to a criminal revision. 2.In order to constitute an offence under the Illegal Dispossession Act, the complaint must disclose actus reas and mens rea, and if the facts that constitute an offence under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act are not disclosed through the complaint or documents with it, then the Court can dismiss the complaint straight away. Rel: Waqar Ali v. The State (PLD 2011 SC 181).

Summary: [Service matters (Dismissal-Termination)] the petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court while calling in question the termination letter dated 26.02.2019 issued by the Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology (hereinafter referred to as University), relieving her from the services of University with retrospective effect i.e. 20.10.2018, which according to the petitioner is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.---We are not satisfied with the assertion of the respondent-university on the aforesaid analogy, for the reason that Fundamental Rule 54, is clear in its terms, dealing with the reinstatement of the employee consequent to setting aside of his dismissal/removal from service, the entitlement of the employee, to have the period of his absence from his service treated as "on duty" is a statutory consequence of his being reinstated on the merits--This being the legal position of the case, the instant petition is allowed with no order as to costs by holding that the impugned termination order dated 26.02.2019 issued by respondent-university is without legal consequence. Thus, the service of the petitioner is reinstated with effect from termination of her service i.e. 14.02.2019. The respondents are directed to grant her service benefits for the intervening period in accordance with law, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Summary: Post Arrest Bail Application on medical ground dismissed in view of the recommendations of the Medical Board

Summary: ----R.44(4)---Recovery of income tax---Temporary relief to taxpayer from coercive measures /recovery of disputed income tax amount---Scope--- Petitioner impugned notice under R.44(4) ofIncome Tax Rules, 2002 on the ground that same was issued without lawf

Summary: Background:Khawaja Saad Rafique and Khawaja Salman Rafique, along with others, are accused of launching a housing scheme called Paragon City through Paragon City Private Limited.The scheme allegedly commenced without approval from the Lahore Development Authority (LDA).The accused are accused of obtaining approval for the scheme based on forged documents and illegally possessing state lands for the scheme's development.Allegations include illegal occupation and conversion of land into plots, receiving funds without justification, and involvement in financial transactions through proxy companies to conceal the money trail.---Issues:Whether the accused unlawfully initiated the Paragon City housing scheme without proper approval and engaged in illegal land occupation and conversion.Whether the accused received funds through illegitimate means and engaged in financial transactions aimed at concealing the money trail.Whether the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has been conducting investigations impartially and adhering to legal and constitutional standards.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court notes the allegations against the accused regarding the unlawful initiation and operation of the Paragon City housing scheme, illegal land occupation, and financial irregularities.Concerns are raised regarding the impartiality and professionalism of the NAB in conducting investigations and pursuing cases.The court expresses the importance of upholding constitutional and legal standards, ensuring fairness and transparency in the investigative process.It highlights the need for civil society to remain vigilant and demand freedom of thought and expression to safeguard democratic values.

Summary: (a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)- Muhammad Ashraf Butt's case PLD 2009 SC 905; 1992 CLC 1564; 1999 YLR 797; 2014 CLC 1172 and 2016 CLC (Note) 102 rel. (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)- -S. 52-Transaction during pendency of a suit-Lis pendens, principle of-Applicability-Transaction which had taken place during pendency of suit had no protection as it was hit by the principle of 'lis pendens'.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -Ss. 22-A & 22-B-Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, jurisdiction of-Direction to pay compensation-On recovery of detenus from the Police Station, Ex-Officio Justice of Peace directed petitioner Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) to pay compensation to each detenu-Plea raised by petitioner was that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace had no authority to direct police officials to pay compensation-Validity-Monetary compensation always awarded in favour of detenus, which was based upon tentative assessment and could not be treated as final amount of damages for which the detenu could file a suit for damages for the loss caused to his person and property, mental agony, shock and in case of torture for the injuries suffered by such detenu-All such aspects were subject-matter of regular suit where concerned police officers were also entitled to claim set off for the amount paid as compensation in proceedings under S.491, C.P.C.-No bar or prohibition existed in the relevant law to pass any order to police official to pay monetary compensation to detenu who was deprived of his freedom-Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was to first determine through summary inquiry that who was responsible for illegal detention of detenus or get it determined from any Magistrate through inquiry under S.4(k), Cr.P.C. or from any police official of higher rank like Regional Police Officer and then to pass order for awarding compensation-High Court set aside the order passed against petitioner and case was remanded to Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to first determine liability of illegal detention-Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Ali Ahmed v. Muhammad Yaqoob Almani, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Qasimabad, Hyderabad and 5 others PLD 1999 Kar. 134; Muhammad Ibrahim v. S.H.O., Police Station, Sheikhupura 1990 PCr.LJ 1717; Ilyas Masih v. Raja Zafar Iqbal, S.H.O., Police Station Satrah, District Sialkot PLD 1992 Lah. 220; Faqir Muhammad v. S.H.O, Police Station Chak Jhumra and others 1992 PCr.LJ 1387; Abdul Qayyum v. S.H.O. Police Station Shalimar, Lahore 1993 PCr.LJ 91; Mureed Hussain v. S.H.O., Police Station Civil Lines, D.G. Khan 1993 MLD 1167; Abdul Majid v. S.H.O., Police Station Rohilanwali District Muzaffargarh 1995 PCr.LJ 1209; Muhammad Aslam v. S.H.O., Police Station, Nankana Sahib 1997 PCr.LJ 508; Mehboob Alam v. Station House Officer and 2 others 1997 PCr.LJ 1561; Shahid Hussain v. The State and others 1997 PCr.LJ 1582; Ahmad Bakhsh v. Saeed Ahmad, Inspector/S.H.O. Police Station Uch Sharif 1997 MLD 45; Lal Din v. S.H.O., Police Station Dehli Gate, Multan 1997 MLD 246; Muhammad Manzoor v. S.H.O., Police Station Layya, District Multan and another 1997 MLD 1331; Muhammad Akram v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1558; Haji Noor Hassan v. Khalid Masood, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station "B" Division, Rahim Yar Khan 1998 PCr.LJ 1451; Naseer Ahmad v. S.H.O., Police Station Tirandah Muhammad Panah, District Rahim Yar Khan 1998 PCr.LJ 196; Rana Muhammad Aslam v. Azmat Bashir and others 2011 SCMR 1420; Bhim Singh v. State of J. and K. and others AIR 1986 SC 494 = 1986 Cri.LJ. 192 and Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P. and others AIR 1995 SC 117 ref. Rana Muhammad Arif Kamal Noon, Prosecutor General, Punjab along with Ms. Nuzhat Bashir, Deputy Prosecutor General, Usman Iqbal, Deputy Prosecutor General and Safdar Hayat Boasl, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State.

Summary: (a) Public Procurement Rules, 2004- -Rr. 4, 5 & 23(8)-Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XXII of 2002) S. 26-Public Procurement Regulations, 2008, Regln. 3-Pakistan Engineering Council Act (V of 1975), S.25-Pakistan Engineering Council Construction and Operation of Engineering Works Byelaws 1987, Cl. 7(2)-Public procurement-Principles-International and inter-governmental commitments of Federal Government-International treaty or agreement to prevail to extent of conflict between such treaty/commitment and Public Procurement Rules, 2004-Standard Bidding Documents, deviation from-Projects financed under loan from International Financial Institutions-Scope-Question before High Court was whether a bidding process initiated by respondent Electricity Supply Company was liable to be annulled due to non-adoption of standard form of bidding documents issued by Pakistan Engineering Council and absence of requirement that foreign bidders were to only bid as joint-ventures with local firms registered with Pakistan Engineering Council-Contention of petitioner, inter alia, was that such requirements were mandatory under the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 and Pakistan Engineering Council Construction and Operation of Engineering Works Byelaws, 1987-Validity-Project for which procurement was sought was being financed by funds provided by Asian Development Bank under a loan agreement with Federal Government and R. 5 of Public Procurement Rules, 2004 gave primacy to obligation or commitment of Federal Government arising out of an international agreement with an international financial institution over the Public Procurement Rules, 2004-Provisions of Asian Development Bank Procurement Guidelines therefore had primacy over provisions of R.23(4) of Public Procurement Rules, 2004 as well as over requirements of Pakistan Engineering Council byelaws, which even otherwise did not apply to the tender/procurement in question-Constitutional petition, being without merit, was dismissed, in circumstances. Debendra Bandhu Lahiri v. The State of West Bengal AIR 1952 Cal. 808 rel. (b) Interpretation of statutes- -"Proviso", function, object and scope-Construction of a proviso to a statutory provision-Principles-Function of proviso was to except something out of an enactment or to qualify something enacted therein, which, but for the proviso, would be within purview of such enactment-General rule in construing an enactment containing proviso was to construe them together without making either redundant or otiose-Enacting part, even if same was clear; an effort was to be made to give some meaning to proviso and justify its necessity and such proviso had to be strictly construed. Mst. Nawab Bibi v. Ch. Allah Ditta 1998 SCMR 2381; Sheikh Abdul Hakeem v. Shamsuddin PLD 2008 Quetta 14; Lubna Afzal v. Union Bank Limited 2003 CLD 868; Abid Hussain v. Additional District Judge, Alipur, District Muzaffargarh 2006 SCMR 100; Messrs Hamdard Dawakhana v. Commissioner Income-Tax, Karachi PLD 1980 SC 84; Messra Tariq Brothers v. Collector of Customs 2005 PTD 186; Madras and Southern Mahratta Ry. Co. Ltd. v. Bezwada Municipality AIR 1944 Privy Council 71; Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills and Ginning Factory v. Subhash Chandra Yograj Siniha AIR 1961 SC 1596; Mullins v. Treasurer of Survey (1880) 5 QBD 170 and Local Government Board v. South Stoneham Union 1909) AC 57 (HL) rel. (c) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199-Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court-Scope-Mandamus, writ of-Scope-High Court, while exercising equitable jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution could take into consideration a petitioner's conduct, in allowing or disallowing relief-Issuance of writ of mandamus was equitable and therefore Court on being approached may refuse to grant relief unless petitioner's conduct was free from blame and conduct of such party should be fair and honest-Obligatory upon Court exercising equitable jurisdiction to impose costs on a litigant for unprincipled conduct. National Accountability Bureau v. Messrs Hudaibya Paper Mills Limited PLD 2018 SC 296; Ghansham Das v. Federation of Pakistan 2017 PLC (C.S.) 191; Javed Ali v. Mst. Shabiran 2010 MLD 943; Nadir Ali v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Faisalabad PLD 2006 Lah. 298; Haji Arbab Ali v. Deputy Director, SASO 1996 CLC 245; Manzoor Hussain v. Zulfiqar Ali 1983 SCMR 137; Nadeem Akhtar Khan Niazi v. Zila Council, Khanewal 1999 YLR 685; Pakistan Herald Publications Private) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1998 CLC 65; Muhammad Yaqoob v. Muslim Commercial Bank 2002 PLC 158; Shah Rehman v. The State 2003 MLD 714 and Shams Din v. Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore 1985 MLD 1266 rel. (d) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199-Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court-Public interest litigation-Public procurement-Laches-Scope-In procurement process for award of public contracts, delay due to litigation could cause huge loss to public exchequer-Petitioners, invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court with personal or financial interest in a public procurement process, who claim to be public interest litigants, could not be permitted to challenge with impunity bidding processes initiated by public agencies-Delay in approaching High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution to initiate public interest litigation could be held to be a valid defence on which such litigation may be defeated. Echo West International (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Punjab 2009 CLD 937; R & M Trust v. Koramangala Resi. Vigilance AIR 2005 SC 894 and Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 590 rel. Muhammad Asif Khan for I.E.S.C.O./Respondent No.3 Muhammad Khurshid, Deputy Director, P.P.R.A. Noor-ul-Najam representative of P.P.R.A. Dates of hearing: 15th, 21st and 30th, January, 2020.

Summary: Summary pending