Summary: Establishment of the Office of Ombudsman for the Province of Balochistan Ordinance(VI of 2001)----Ss.9 & 11---Constitution of Pakistan Art. 199---Jurisdiction functions and powers of theOmbudsman---Recommendations for implementations of Provincial Ombudsman---CivilService---Recruitment---Provincial Ombudsman's jurisdiction vis-?-vis recruitment /appointment to Government Departments---Constitutional petition---Question before HighCourt was whether forums provided for in Establishment of the office of Ombudsman for theProvince of Balochistan Ordinance, 2001 had jurisdiction to dilate upon matters ofappointment/recruitment of persons in Government Departments---Held, that scheme andspirit of Establishment of the office of Ombudsman for the Province of BalochistanOrdinance, 2001 did not empower Provincial Ombudsman to adjudicate upon matters ofappointments in Government Departments---Under said law, having considered a matter ofbeing case of maladministration, Ombudsman could only move to concerned Department fortaking disciplinary action against any public servant under applicable law---ProvincialOmbudsman, therefore, could not direct for making or de-notifying appointment of acandidate who applied for appointment in a Government Department---Constitutionalpetition was disposed of, accordingly.

Summary: Background:Konish Enterprise (Pvt) Ltd. (Konish) filed a civil suit against Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Ltd. (PTCL) and the National Highway Authority (NHA) alleging damage to trees it had planted along certain roads.---Issues:Competence of Konish's suit.PTCL's liability for damages to Konish's trees.Whether PTCL's appeal was barred by limitation.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court dismissed both parties' preliminary objections regarding competence and limitation.It established the legal relationship between NHA and PTCL as licensor and licensee, and between NHA and Konish as licensor and licensee for tree planting.The court analyzed PTCL's duty of care towards Konish, citing principles of negligence including foreseeability, proximity, and fairness.It concluded that PTCL had a duty to take reasonable care not to damage Konish's trees.PTCL was found liable for damaging Konish's trees, and its appeal was dismissed.The court held that PTCL's deposit to NHA did not affect its liability to Konish.No order was made as to costs.---Citations/Precedents:Pak Turk Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd. v. Turk Hava Yollari (Turkish Airlines Inc.) 2015 CLC 1Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd. [1936] AC 85, [1935] UKPC 2, AIR 1936 PC 34Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562, [1932] UKHL 100Anns v. Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728, [1977] UKHL 4Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, [1990] UKHL 2Sutherland Shire Council v. Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424, [1985] HCA 41Dean v. Allin & Watts (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 758Clerk & Lindsell on Torts (22nd ed., 2018)

Summary: Background: The appellants filed a suit for declaration-cum-possession concerning a piece of land measuring 1 kanal 13 marla and 3 sarsai in village Rangpur, Tehsil and District Mirpur. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge on April 19, 2017. During the pendency of the appeal before the District Judge, the appellants sought to amend the plaint. The District Judge dismissed the amendment application on May 14, 2018. The appellants then filed a revision petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on May 23, 2019. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. ----Issues 1- Whether the District Judge and the High Court erred in dismissing the appellants' application to amend the plaint. 2- Whether the proposed amendment to the plaint is necessary for the just decision of the case and does not affect the rights of any party. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Supreme Court found that the proposed amendment to the plaint was necessary for the just decision of the case and would not change the suit's complexion or cause of action. The Court noted that the respondents had no objection to the amendment if reasonable costs were paid. Consequently, the Court allowed the amendment application, subject to the appellants paying Rs. 10,000 to the defendants within a fortnight. Failure to pay this amount would result in the dismissal of the amendment application. ----Citations/Precedents Civil Judge Court No.1, Mirpur Judgment (19.04.2017): Dismissed the original suit for declaration-cum-possession. District Judge Order (14.05.2018): Dismissed the application for amendment in the plaint. High Court Judgment/Order (23.05.2019): Dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants.

Summary: Background: The appellant lodged a verbal report at Police Station Ali Bagi on June 5, 2018, against the respondents, alleging an assault during a compromise meeting following a fight at a volleyball game. The appellant and his son were attacked by the respondents with weapons, causing serious injuries. The accused applied for pre-arrest bail, which was granted by the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Bhimber on June 28, 2018, except for two accused, Qamar and Imran alias Mani. The appellant filed a revision petition before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which was dismissed on June 28, 2019, leading to this appeal in the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. ---Issues: 1- Whether the District Court and the Shariat Appellate Bench erred in granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents. 2- Whether the respondents demonstrated the necessary conditions for pre-arrest bail, including the claim that the case was registered with mala fide intentions. ---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no force in the appellant's arguments. The Court held that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted in routine and requires the applicant to show that the case was registered with mala fide intentions and that their arrest would result in humiliation. However, the Court noted that the grounds for post-arrest bail could also be considered for pre-arrest bail if the case requires further inquiry. In this instance, the allegations against the respondents required further investigation, and the respondents were not attributed with a serious role in the incident. The Court emphasized that bail should not be withheld as a punishment and cited relevant precedents to support its decision. ---Citations/Precedents: Murad Khan vs. Fazal-e-Subhan and another (PLD 1983 SC 82) Fazad Dad vs. The State (PLD 1987 Sh. C (AJ&K) 10)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: No doubt, the complainant, in his report, has though charged accused for the commission of offence, but the medical report available on recordsuggests that no sexual act wasdone with the victim.Similarly, the report of FSL also does not support the prosecution version. Except the solitary statement of complainant, no other incriminating evidence is available on record to prima facie connect the accused-petitioner with the commission of crime.Besides, no other eyewitness has been cited so as to support the version of complainant.Keeping the Preamble of the Act in juxtaposition with the definition of the Child at risk as contemplated under section 2(1)(e) of the Act coupled with the facts and circumstances of the instant case it could not be ascertained as to whether the alleged victim, falls under the definition of child at risk or otherwise. In such an eventuality, the applicability of sections 53 of the Act of 2010, to the case of petitioners is yet a begging question.Wisdom can be derived from case law reported in 2016 SCMR 1523, 2014 MLD 190 & 2018 YLR Note 114. In the given scenario, applicability of sections 355 PPC would also require debate during trial. Moreover, in the instant case, no compliance with the provision of Section 164-B Cr.P.C has been made because no samples for DNA test have been obtained either from the accused-petitioners or victim despite the fact that the word shall is used in the said provision, making its applicability mandatory. The prosecution must keep in mind this aspect while dealing with such like offences, in the best interest of the victim as well as the accused.

Summary: Record reveals that the alleged occurrence took place on 28.08.2019 while the accused/petitioner was arrested on the next date of occurrence i.e. 29.08.2019 but the crime knife was still in the folds of his trouser, which was still blood stained. This fact makes the case of prosecution as one of further inquiry, as it is the anxiety of the accused to get rid of crime weapon as soon as possible.As per medical report of Medical officer, RHC Kot Najibullah, dated 28.08.2019, the injuries found on the body of complainant were skin deep, while the injuries on the body of Usama have though been shown to be bone exposed, however, the nature of wounds is not mentioned, Keeping in view the injuries mentioned in both the MLCs, the question as to whether Sec. 324 PPC is applicable or not, is a question of further inquiry.

Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution, section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act and interpretation of statutes. (a) Preamble of a statute may be read in aid of interpretation, where clarity is lacking in provisions of the statue, but where such provisions are clear, unambiguous and free from any doubt, effect has to be given to literal meaning of the main provisions of statute. (b) Illegal Dispossession Act shall apply to any person who is found in contravention of section 3 of the Act, regardless of his past history

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973------Art. 199--Electricity bill--Representation--Electric Power company issued bill of monthwithout considering that amount of arrears has already been paid--Copy of writ petition beremitted to respondent who will treat same as a representation and decide issue and correctbill under National electric power regulator authority (import of power) regulations, 2017--In meanwhile, No coercive measures shall be adopted against petitioner for recovery ofalleged arrears. [Pp. 230 & 231] A & CConstitution of Pakistan, 1973------Art. 199--Maintainability of writ petition--Court can take cognizance of matter wheremisuse or abuse of authority by public functionariesarises. [P. 230] B2002 CLC 59 ref