Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 199(1)(c) & Art. 23--- Writ petition—Maintainability against private entities—Scope—Petitioner challenged building notice and regulations issued by Cooperative Model Town Society—Society contended that it was not amenable to writ jurisdiction—Held, although a cooperative society is a private body, High Court under Art. 199(1)(c) is empowered to issue directions to any person, including private entities, for enforcement of fundamental rights—Right to property under Art. 23 is a fundamental right—Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could be invoked where such rights are infringed, irrespective of whether the impugned action is taken by a private or public authority. Cited Cases: • The State v. Director-General FIA PLD 2010 Lahore 23 • Captain Salim Bilal v. PIAC 2013 PLC (C.S.) 1212 (b) Cooperative Societies Act, 1925: ----Ss. 54 & 44-F--- Dispute between member and cooperative society—Scope—Petitioner challenged notice issued by the Society under its own building regulations—Held, dispute pertained to internal affairs of the Society and touched upon the business of the society—Such disputes must be referred to the Registrar Co-operative Societies under S. 54 of the Act for resolution through adjudication or arbitration—Court directed parties to appear before Registrar for redressal—No penal action to be taken by Society against Petitioner until matter decided. Cited Cases: • DHA Lahore v. Builders & Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. 2015 SCMR 1799 • Syed Sultan Ali v. Sahibzada Frogh Najam Najmi 2009 CLC 477 (c) Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975: ----Building control jurisdiction---LDA’s authority over housing schemes in Lahore---Society claimed exemption from LDA regulations due to its location---Held, all private housing schemes in Lahore Division are subject to LDA’s control over layout plans, land use, and building regulations—Society's independent regulations were invalid without LDA’s approval—LDA Act prevails. (d) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 199—Laches—Effect on maintainability of writ—Held, delay in approaching court cannot bar enforcement of fundamental rights—Laches not an absolute bar where dispute involves constitutional rights and denial of justice—Court declined to reject petition on ground of delay. ----Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; parties directed to approach Registrar Co-operative Societies for adjudication under S. 54; Society restrained from penal action pending decision.

Summary: Against impugned notices dated 17.7.19 & 29.7.19 and also seeks directions to respondent no.2 to allow the petitioners to submit registration/ renewal fees etc on the previous rate in view of order dated 19.1.18 in WP 2756/16 passed by this Hon'ble Court.

Summary: CR: Against Acquittal: FIR 22-2018, U/s 489-F PPC P.S Industrial Area

Summary: Sections of law;Sections 13 & 16 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997. (a) A person cannot be held guilty for commission of an offence unless his act (actus rea) is accompanied by guilty mind (mens rea) except a situation where it is a case of strict liability wherein absence of mensrea may not be fatal to the case of prosecution.(b) Section 16 of the Consumers Protection Act, 1997 is remedial in nature, same would not require proof of mens rea and the offences thereunder shall be dealt with as cases of strict liability.

Summary: The case involved a challenge to the imposition of a super tax under Section 4B of the Ordinance of 2001 for the rehabilitation of temporarily displaced persons. Appellants argued against the constitutionality of the levy through writ petitions, contending that it exceeded legislative competence and violated constitutional provisions. The learned Single Bench dismissed the petitions, upholding the super tax as constitutional and valid, stating it was in accordance with Article 80 of the Constitution. The counsel also questioned the ongoing nature of the levy since its introduction in 2015 for the rehabilitation purpose, which he claimed was no longer relevant. The court concluded that the impugned levy qualifies as a tax, falling within legislative competence. It rejected arguments related to double taxation and lack of inclusion in the divisible pool. The judgment clarified that findings were limited to the vires of Section 4B of the Ordinance of 2001. The appeal, along with connected cases, was dismissed.

Summary: Background:The petitioner filed a Civil Petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution against the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench's judgment dated 26.05.2011, which dismissed Civil Revision No. 574 of 1992.---Issues:Whether the reference of the matter to the arbitrator by the court was permissible under the law.Whether there were any apparent errors in the award that required assessment by the trial court.Whether the defects noted by the appellate courts were adequately addressed by the petitioner.---Holding/Reasoning:The court noted that the reference of the matter to the arbitrator by the court was impermissible under the law. Even if considered as irregular, the trial court failed to assess the award for apparent errors. The defects noted by the appellate courts remained unaddressed by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner failed to make a case for leave, and the Civil Petition was dismissed.---Precedents/Citations:Jaffar Abbas and 2 others v. Ahmad and another (PLD 1991 SC 1131)Sh. Ghulam Mohammad and another v. The Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd. and 21 others (1971 SCMR 148)Dr. Ansar Hassan Rizvi v. Syed Mazahir Hussain Zaidi and 3 others (1971 SCMR 634)Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and others v. Maulvi Behram (through his heirs) (1972 SCMR 608)Ashfaq Ali Qureshi v. Municipal Corporation, Multan and another (1984 SCMR 597)Messers Qamaruddin Ahmad & Co. v. Government of Pakistan (1985 SCMR 1775)Muhammad Mansha and 7 others v. Abdul Sattar and 4 others (1995 SCMR 795)Jameel Ahmad v. Late Saifuddin through Legal Representatives (1997 SCMR 260)Civil Aviation Authority, Karachi v. Rist Consultants (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore (1998 SCMR 2393)Attiqullah v. Kafayatullah (PLJ 1981 SC 330)Tariq Hussain and another v. Additional District Judge, Vehari (2006 CLC 514)The Project Director, Peoples Programme v. Khawaja Muhammad Sarwar (1989 CLC 1030)Muhammad Jamil v. Municipal Committee, Mandi Bahauddin through Chairman and another (2001 MLD 568)Syed Mukhtar Hussain Naqvi v. Mst. Hajiani Zubeda and another (2003 YLR 3289)

Summary: Background:Zahid Ullah (petitioner/accused) filed a bail petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C. for post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 26/2019, dated 18-10-2019, registered under Sections 337-F(5), 337-F(3), 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) at Police Station Jal Thak, Tehsil Chilas, District Diamer. The incident involved an altercation and subsequent shooting that resulted in injuries to members of the opposing party.----Issues:Whether the petitioner/accused is entitled to post-arrest bail.Whether the rule of consistency applies, given that co-accused have been granted pre-arrest bail.Whether the absence of a medico-legal report and injury sheet creates reasonable doubt regarding the petitioner's involvement.Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Entitlement to Post-Arrest Bail: The court found that the petitioner/accused is entitled to bail due to the lack of sufficient evidence, including the absence of a medico-legal report and injury sheet for the victim Abdul Malik. Additionally, the 24-hour delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained, which raised doubts about the prosecution's case.Rule of Consistency: The court noted that the co-accused had already been granted pre-arrest bail, thereby applying the rule of consistency to the petitioner?s case.Reasonable Doubt: The court highlighted the lack of medico-legal evidence and the delay in filing the FIR, which contributed to the decision to grant bail due to reasonable doubt.The court emphasized that the grant of bail does not equate to an acquittal but rather a provision to ensure justice while the case is pending trial.---Citations/Precedents:Sections 337-F(5), 337-F(3), 324, 148, and 149 of PPC.Section 497 Cr.P.C. (post-arrest bail provisions).Conclusion:The petition for post-arrest bail was allowed. Zahid Ullah was granted bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 500,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The court also directed the Inspector General Police Gilgit-Baltistan to ensure that complete police records are provided to the Deputy Advocate General before hearings to facilitate proper assistance to the court.