Summary: (1) Scope & contours of review jurisdiction Under Section 8 of The Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957; (2) Declaration of title, if so required, will be sought by the beneficiary from the Civil Court and not vice versa by the one who is deprived of inheritance share(s) or any other rights viz the property; (3) Mutation does not confer any right or title in favor of any party but constitutes merely an official record for fiscal purposes on the administrative side;

Summary: The protection of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is not extended to a mere owner; it is available only where an owner-in-possession has been unlawfully dispossessed

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 199---Mandamus---Enforcement of statutory food-grade packaging standards---Public health and food security---Petitioner, Chairman of Pakistan Polypropylene Woven Sack Manufacturers Association, sought direction for enforcement of S.R.O. 117(KE)/2016 [PS:4877] dated 09.09.2016 and S.R.O. 46(KE)/2017 [PS:3128] dated 19.05.2017, mandating compliant packaging standards for cement and food-grade polypropylene woven sacks---High Court held that non-enforcement of binding SROs for several years raised grave issues of public health, national food wastage and failure of public duty, warranting constitutional intervention. (b) Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority Act, 1996---- ----Ss. 8, 15 & 22---Mandatory Pakistan Standards---Food-grade polypropylene woven sacks---Scope of PSQCA jurisdiction---PSQCA objected that wheat flour was not included in list of mandatory items and therefore it could not regulate flour mills or end-users---High Court rejected objection, holding that mandatory item was “Polypropylene Woven Sacks for Packing and Transportation of Food Items (PS:3128),” not the food contents inside the sack---Jurisdiction of PSQCA travelled with the non-compliant article itself, namely the sack, wherever manufactured, stored, sold or transported. (c) Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority Act, 1996---- ----Ss. 8(x), 15(2)(c), 15(2)(d) & 22---Non-compliant sacks---Power to seize, detain and penalize---PSQCA could not confine its role to licensing manufacturers of compliant sacks while ignoring manufacture, storage, sale and transport of non-compliant sacks intended for food packaging---Statutory provisions empowered PSQCA to stop manufacture, storage and sale, seize and detain non-compliant articles and initiate penal action---Failure to exercise such powers amounted to dereliction of statutory duty. (d) Constitutional jurisdiction---- ----Maintainability---Locus standi of association---Public importance---Petitioner association of compliant sack manufacturers had sufficient locus standi as its members were directly affected by illegal market of non-compliant products---More importantly, petition involved matters of transcendent public importance concerning health, food safety, national food wastage and enforcement of fundamental rights---Petition was maintainable under Art.199. (e) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 9, 14 & 38---Unsafe food packaging---Right to life, dignity and social/economic welfare---Use of recycled plastic waste, inferior polypropylene sacks and recycled cement paper bags for food items posed risk of contamination, wastage and health hazards---State’s failure to prevent contamination of staple foods implicated right to life/security of person under Art.9, dignity under Art.14, and duty to promote social and economic welfare under Art.38---State has positive obligation to protect citizens from such public health risks. (f) Public law---- ----Regulatory inaction---Maladministration---Failure to enforce own statutory notifications---S.R.O. 117(KE)/2016 and S.R.O. 46(KE)/2017 were lawfully issued under PSQCA Act and had force of law---Failure of state authorities to implement their own binding regulations for over eight years was arbitrary, unreasonable, amounted to maladministration and eroded public trust in regulatory governance. (g) Food safety---- ----Food-grade packaging---National food wastage---Economic loss---Petitioner alleged that inferior sacks caused 3% to 5% wastage of packed wheat flour during handling and transport, resulting in annual loss of Rs.23 to Rs.38 billion and cumulative loss exceeding Rs.80 billion since 2017---Respondents did not materially controvert quantifiable data---High Court treated matter as national emergency involving food security, public health and avoidable economic wastage. (h) Federation and provinces---- ----18th Amendment---Food regulation as provincial function---Federal regulatory duty---PSQCA and Ministry of National Food Security---Respondents attempted to shift responsibility to provincial food authorities---High Court held that federal-provincial distribution of functions could not create regulatory vacuum---PSQCA had direct statutory duty over non-compliant articles under federal standards, while Ministry of National Food Security, though not a direct food-safety enforcement agency, could not completely disengage from systemic wastage of national wheat/flour supply. (i) Ministry of National Food Security and Research---- ----Macro-management of wheat and food security---Policy role---Packaging compliance---Ministry’s objection that flour packaging was a provincial/industrial matter was sustained only to limited extent that it was not a direct enforcement agency---However, Ministry’s core mandate of national food security required it to use strategic policy levers, consultations and coordination to ensure government-released wheat flour is packed in PSQCA-certified food-grade sacks. (j) Cooperative federalism---- ----Federal and provincial coordination---Food packaging enforcement---High Court held that buck-passing between federal and provincial entities had created regulatory black hole---Coordinated action between PSQCA, Ministry of National Food Security, Provincial Food Departments and Provincial Food Authorities was necessary to enforce statutory standards and protect citizens’ rights. (k) Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority Act, 1996---- ----PS:3128 and PS:4877---Enforcement directions---High Court directed PSQCA to launch nationwide enforcement drive within thirty days, exercise powers under Ss.8, 15 and 22, identify, seize, detain and initiate penal proceedings against manufacture, storage, sale and transport of non-compliant polypropylene woven sacks intended for food items and non-compliant kraft paper sacks used for cement or found in food supply chain---PSQCA was directed not to limit action to manufacturers but extend it to distributors, godowns and transporters. (l) Administrative law---- ----Compliance reports---Judicial monitoring---High Court directed PSQCA to submit comprehensive compliance report within ninety days detailing actions taken, quantities seized, penalties imposed and geographical scope of operations---Ministry of National Food Security was directed to convene consultations within thirty days and submit report within ninety days regarding policy measures for ensuring use of PSQCA-certified sacks in wheat flour produced from government-released wheat. (m) Public health governance---- ----Joint Action Plan---Federal/provincial enforcement mechanism---Both respondents were directed to convene meeting within forty-five days with representatives of all Provincial Food Authorities and submit Joint Action Plan for coordinated and sustained enforcement, including information sharing, joint inspection teams where appropriate and public awareness campaigns. (n) Constitutional duty of public functionaries---- ----Implementation of law---Gazette notifications not to remain dormant---High Court observed that laws are not written to gather dust in gazette notifications but to be implemented for protection of people---Public functionaries cannot avoid enforcement of statutory standards by relying on bureaucratic technicalities where public health and fundamental rights are at stake. Disposition: Writ Petition No.1801 of 2020 was allowed; non-implementation of S.R.O. 117(KE)/2016 [PS:4877] and S.R.O. 46(KE)/2017 [PS:3128] was declared failure of public duty, arbitrary and violative of Arts.9, 14 and 38 of the Constitution; PSQCA and Ministry of National Food Security were issued enforcement, consultation and reporting directions; Registrar was directed to send copies to respondents, Chief Secretaries and Chairpersons of Provincial Food Authorities of Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan for compliance.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Public Procurement Rules, 2004--- ----R.25---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.175F(c)---Public procurement---Tender process---Additional security, demand of---Demand based on undisclosed engineer’s estimate---Legality---Transparency and fairness---Change in essential terms after advertisement---Effect---Advertisement, scope and significance of---Brief facts were that the petitioners invited tenders in which the respondent emerged successful and deposited earnest money on the advertised estimated cost; later, the petitioners demanded 8% additional security on the basis of an undisclosed engineer’s estimate, and upon refusal, rejected the bid, forfeited the earnest money, and debarred the respondent for six months; the respondent challenged this action through a writ petition, which was allowed by the High Court---The issue before the Federal Constitutional Court was “whether additional security could lawfully be imposed on the basis of a benchmark not disclosed in the tender notice?”---Held: Petitioner’s approach of computingthe 2% earnest money on the basis of the estimated cost expresslydisclosed in the advertisement, while switching to an undisclosedengineer estimate later on, was legally untenable, as it offended therequirements of transparency, consistency, and equal treatment inpublic procurement---Any midstreamdeparture from the stipulated tender terms, without prior public notice,and in the absence of legal/cogent justification, was inherently arbitrary,and undermined the principle of equal opportunity among bidders---Theintroduction of an additional security requirement by reference to abenchmark not disclosed in the advertisement, appeared to be patentlyarbitrary and incompatible with the requirements of transparency andfairness in the facts and circumstances of the case---No interference was required in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court---Leave was refused and the petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Habibullah Energy Limited and another v. WAPDA through Chairman PLD 2014 SC 47 and Ishaq Khan Khakwani and another v. Railway Board through Chairman and others PLD 2019 SC 602 rel. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and others AIR 2000 SC 2272 ref. Khalilullah Khalil, Advocate Supreme Court with Abid Shafi, Director (Law) for Petitioners. Mian Abdul Rauf, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd February, 2026.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Following question of law has been put before this Court for opinion: Whether, in every case where an illiterate sister transfers property to her brother, the beneficiary must prove the transaction beyond doubt, even where the transferor herself appears before the Court and unequivocally admits its execution? Held that there is no invariable rule requiring a beneficiary to prove a transaction beyond doubt merely because the vendor is an illiterate or physically disabled sister. Where the vendor herself appears before the Court, with full legal guidance, and unequivocally admits execution of the sale deed and receipt of consideration, the presumption of validity stands reinforced.