Summary: Summary pending

Summary: When a minor's interests are at stake in litigation, the court may override parental consent for DNA test if it observes that such consent is not in the best interest of the minor.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- Ss. 439, 561-A—Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005), Ss. 3 & 7—Restoration of possession—Functus officio—Scope Petitioner sought restoration of possession under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 after acquittal in complaint proceedings—Bailiff had already delivered possession to complainant during pendency of proceedings in compliance with trial court’s order dated 21.07.2006—Held, after acquittal on 20.07.2011, trial court had become functus officio and could not entertain or decide a restoration application filed later in 2019—Court found no statutory provision empowering petitioner to revive or agitate the same—Petition was thus misconceived and barred by law. Cited cases: Ali Kuli Amin-ud-Din v. Muhammad Zafar & others (2012 PCrLJ 1136); Iqbal v. The State & another (2001 PCrLJ 1634). (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 203—Dismissal of complaint—Effect—Subsequent restoration application Petitioner filed application under S. 203 Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of restoration order during pendency of complaint—However, possession had already been delivered prior to such application—Upon acquittal of accused in complaint under S. 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, the application became infructuous—Petitioner’s failure to pursue or press for decision at relevant time rendered subsequent petition after years legally untenable. Principle reaffirmed: Once relief is granted and complied with, and complaint is finally decided, further criminal remedy cannot be entertained absent explicit statutory authority. (c) Civil and criminal jurisdiction—Parallel proceedings—Pending civil suit regarding ownership—Effect on criminal claim for possession Petitioner’s claim of ownership was already sub judice in a civil suit filed in 2007 by legal heirs of original owner challenging sale deed—Petitioner had also admitted in civil pleadings to having sold the land onward—Held, during pendency of civil proceedings, criminal courts cannot be invoked for recovery or restoration of possession—Proper remedy lies before civil forum—Criminal court rightly declined to entertain belated request for possession. Principle: Civil disputes over title or possession must be adjudicated through appropriate civil forum and not through revival of disposed criminal proceedings. Disposition: Criminal revision petition dismissed—Petitioner’s application found to be legally incompetent, barred by delay, and filed before a court that had become functus officio—No ground for interference made out.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan––Art. 199; Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, S. 7; Elections Act, 2017, S. 230––De-notification of Ombudsperson by Caretaker Government––Validity––Jurisdictional limits of Caretaker Government and Election Commission. Appointment of the petitioner as Ombudsperson was for a fixed tenure, later extended to four years under the Amendment Act, 2021––Such tenure could not be curtailed in absence of proven misconduct or incapacity established through due process––Neither the Act nor the General Clauses Act, 1897 provided the Caretaker Government with lawful authority to remove the Ombudsperson––Held, that Caretaker Government lacked legal competence under S.230 of the Elections Act, 2017 to issue the impugned de-notification; its powers were limited to routine, reversible, non-controversial matters essential for day-to-day governance––Removal of a statutory office-holder appointed for a fixed tenure amounted to a substantive and irreversible act beyond its mandate––Furthermore, absence of due process in the removal violated the guarantee of fair trial and due process under Art. 10A of the Constitution. Cited cases: • Badshah Gul Wazir v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2015 SCMR 43) • Naveed Asghar v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600) (b) Constitution of Pakistan––Arts. 218, 219 & 220; Elections Act, 2017, Ss. 4, 5, 8 & 230; Election Rules, 2017, R. 170––Powers of Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP)––Scope––Whether ECP could direct permanent removal of officials. Held, that ECP has the authority to issue directions necessary to ensure free and fair elections and to seek assistance from executive authorities––However, permanent removal of office bearers not falling within core electoral processes was not within its express mandate––While ECP may recommend transfers or temporary postings to prevent election influence, its direction for removal must be specific, justified, and tied directly to electoral integrity––No material was shown demonstrating that the petitioner’s continued service as Ombudsperson would influence electoral outcomes––Impugned direction from ECP and subsequent action by Caretaker Government held to be ultra vires. Cited cases: • Workers’ Party Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 681) • Khawaja Muhammad Asif v. Federation of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 1205) (c) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, S. 7––Security of tenure of Ombudsperson––Legislative silence regarding removal procedure––Effect. Held, that the Act provides a fixed tenure of four years and permits only voluntary resignation under S. 7(6)––The legislative silence on removal implies intent to ensure independence of the office––Allowing arbitrary removal without due process would render the fixed tenure meaningless––Such interpretation would compromise the impartiality of the office, which performs quasi-judicial functions––Reliance on S.16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 for removal was found misplaced in this context. Cited cases: • Messrs Khurshid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2020 SC 641) (d) Constitution of Pakistan––Art. 175(3) & 10A––Separation of powers and due process––Quasi-judicial functions––Ombudsperson’s independence. Office of the Ombudsperson performs functions similar to those of judicial forums, such as adjudication of complaints and issuance of binding orders––Such functions require independence from executive interference––Subjection of the office to the whims of Caretaker Government undermines constitutional separation of powers and violates due process requirements enshrined in Art. 10A––Security of tenure serves as a safeguard for judicial independence in quasi-judicial roles. (e) Interpretation of statutes––Retrospective effect––Commencement clause––Applicability of amended tenure to sitting office-holders. Held, that the Amendment Act came into force at once as per its commencement clause––No expression limiting application to future appointees was present––Thus, petitioner, who was serving at the time of enactment, lawfully continued under the extended four-year term––Notification dated 01.04.2022 was validly issued to apply the amendment to her case. Cited case: • Messrs Khurshid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2020 SC 641) (f) Appointment process––Lack of statutorily defined procedure for appointment of Ombudsperson––Need for reform. Court noted absence of any statutory framework for the appointment of the Ombudsperson under the Act––Such omission allows discretion without transparency or equal opportunity––Given the quasi-judicial nature of the office, it is imperative that a comprehensive, public, merit-based process be adopted for future appointments––Directions issued to Chief Secretary Punjab to formulate such a procedure involving public advertisement and evaluation by an impartial body such as the Public Service Commission. Cited case: • Mushtaq Ahmad Moral and others v. The Honourable Lahore High Court (1997 SCMR 1043) Disposition: Writ Petition allowed––Impugned notification dated 04.08.2023 declared null and void––Petitioner deemed to have remained in office uninterruptedly.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Invalidity of possession orders passed in a complaint under Section 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, lacking specificity and proper procedural consideration.

Summary: 396ICA (Writ)- ICA Land 1-21 HAJI LASHKAR KHAN ETC VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB ETC Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan 10- 06- 2025 2025 LHC 8118 2025 CLC 1926 [Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)

Summary: Summary pending