Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Sugar Scam/ Against the impugned notification dated 16.03.2020 issued by M/o Interior and also seeks direction to set aside the impugned report of commission of inquiry consuited by M/o Interior to probe into the increase in sugar prices dated 21.05.2020

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The petitioner, Riaz Hussain, a Band Master in BS-7, challenged a show cause notice issued to him under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The petitioner claimed that the notice was mala fide, while the Assistant Advocate General argued that challenging a show cause notice at this stage is premature. The court emphasized that a show cause notice is not an adverse order and is not subject to judicial review unless it is mala fide, without jurisdiction, or coram non judice. The court outlined the legal principles related to mala fides, emphasizing that specific evidence is required to prove mala fides, and a mere allegation is insufficient. The court concluded that the petitioner had only alleged mala fide without providing other grounds and directed the petitioner to pursue remedies through departmental channels.

Summary: The brief facts of the case involved a complaint by Respondent No.4 against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner barged into his house and assaulted his maternal cousin, Razia Bibi. The FIR was initially registered under Section 354 PPC. The petitioner contended that the Magistrate had no authority to interfere with the investigation and that the complaint against him is false. The petitioner's counsel argued that medical evidence is essential to corroborate the alleged assault, and since the petitioner is the brother-in-law of Respondent No.4, Section 452 PPC should not be invoked against him. The judge cites guidelines for the exercise of powers by Magistrates under Sections 167 and 344 Cr.P.C. The judge emphasized the separation of roles between the police and the judiciary in the investigation process and highlighted the limitations on the court's authority to interfere with police proceedings. Ultimately, the judge upheld the Magistrate's order, stating that the Magistrate can direct the Investigating Officer to add, delete, or substitute an offense mentioned in the FIR if circumstances warrant. However, the Magistrate cannot dictate the manner in which the Investigating Officer submitted the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petition was dismissed based on these considerations.

Summary: The petitioner, initially serving as a Junior Clerk in the City District Government, Lahore, qualified the written examination but had his candidature rejected by the PPSC due to being overage and not submitting a Departmental Permission Certificate. The petitioner argued that the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976, entitled government servants to relaxation in the upper age limit. The petitioner contended that there was no distinction made in the rules regarding government departments, and the PPSC, through departmental instructions, wrongfully excluded City District/Zila Council/Local Council servants from the benefit of these rules. The court, after considering arguments from both sides, ruled that the employees of Zila Council are not government servants based on the applicable rules. The judgment highlighted the definition of "government servant" in various enactments and ruled that the petitioner, governed by the Punjab Local Council Servants (Service) Rules, 1997, cannot be termed a government servant for the purpose of relaxation in the upper age limit. The judgment referred to legal precedents and statutes to support the conclusion that the petitioner did not fall within the definition of a government servant. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition.

Summary: Background:This case involves multiple constitution petitions filed by various petitioners, including Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the Supreme Court Bar Association, Abid Hassan Minto, Pakistan Bar Council, and several other bar associations and individuals. The petitions challenge the legality and validity of Reference No. 1 of 2019 filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa by the President of Pakistan, as well as the proceedings initiated by the Supreme Judicial Council against Justice Isa based on a show-cause notice issued to him. The petitioners argue that the reference and proceedings violate Justice Isa's constitutional rights and seek their annulment.---Issues:Whether Reference No. 1 of 2019 filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa is legal and valid.Whether the proceedings initiated by the Supreme Judicial Council against Justice Isa based on the show-cause notice are lawful.Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief against the reference and proceedings.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court, comprising multiple judges, allowed the petitions and declared Reference No. 1 of 2019 to be of no legal effect, quashing the proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council against Justice Qazi Faez Isa. The court emphasized the importance of upholding the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional rights of individuals, including judges. It reiterated that no one, including judges, is above the law, but also affirmed that judges have the right to be treated in accordance with the law. Justice Yahya Afridi dissented, finding one of the petitions non-maintainable.