Summary: Background: A petitioner challenged the exclusion of his properties located in Ghauri Town from the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 (IRRO, 2001). He argued that despite having approved his property map from the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and paying all relevant taxes, he was deprived of legal remedies to seek eviction against tenants. The petitioner sought to include his properties and other similar areas within the scope of the IRRO, 2001, for fair application of rent laws. ----Issues: 1- Does the exclusion of Ghauri Town and other areas from the IRRO, 2001, violate constitutional rights? 2- Was the Federal Government’s discretion in including or excluding areas under the IRRO, 2001, exercised arbitrarily? 3- Should the IRRO, 2001, apply uniformly to the entire Islamabad Capital Territory, regardless of the area’s approval status by the CDA? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Violation of Constitutional Rights: The court held that excluding certain areas, including Ghauri Town, from the IRRO, 2001, violated the constitutional rights of citizens under Articles 4, 9, and 25 of the Constitution. The IRRO, 2001, is intended to regulate landlord-tenant relationships uniformly across Islamabad Capital Territory. --Federal Government’s Discretion: The court found the Federal Government’s discretion in issuing notifications for the inclusion of areas under the IRRO, 2001, lacked a structured criterion. The Federal Government’s executive authority must align with constitutional provisions, ensuring equality and fairness. --Uniform Application of IRRO, 2001: The court concluded that the IRRO, 2001, should apply to the entire Islamabad Capital Territory, including areas not recognized by the CDA or those with canceled NOCs/LOPs. The law should protect the rights of landlords and tenants equally. The writ petition was allowed, and the Federal Government was directed to issue the necessary notification for the application of IRRO, 2001, to the entire Islamabad Capital Territory, including Ghauri Town and similar areas. The Federal Government was instructed to submit a compliance report within fifteen days. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2022 [SC] 267 (Privatization Commission vs. Aftab Hussain) PLD 2016 SC 534 (Chairman, Pakistan Railway, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others vs. Shah Jehan Shah) PLD 2019 SC 297 (Human Rights Case No.69229-P of 2018) PLD 1998 [SC] 1445 (Mehram Ali Vs. Federation of Pakistan) PLD 2016 SC 808 (Mustafa Impex, Karachi vs. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance, Islamabad) 2010 SCMR 1301 (Tariq Aziz-ud-Din and others in re Human Rights case) 2009 SCMR 1354 (Abdul Wahab and another vs. Secretary, Government of Balochistan and another) PLD 2022 Peshawar 46 (State Bank of Pakistan vs. Federation of Pakistan) 2017 YLR 1224 (Saleem Ullah Khan Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control, Interior Division, Islamabad) PLD 1997 [SC] 700 (E.F.U General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Federation of Pakistan) PLD 2002 [Karachi] 374 (Hakim Ali Zardari Vs. The State) PLD 2021 SC 379 (Malik Munsif Awan, Advocate, Chairman, Pakistan Justice Party, Lahore vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Law and Justice, Islamabad and others)

Summary: Background: The Capital Development Authority (CDA) has filed an appeal (R.F.A. No. 74/2006) against Muhammad Nawaz Khokhar and others. The matter is related to a legal dispute that requires resolution by the Islamabad High Court. ----Issues: The court's inability to hear the case due to time constraints. Direction regarding the next hearing date and priority of the case. Requirement for the parties to submit their statements of costs of litigation. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome Adjournment Due to Time Constraints: The court noted the paucity of time and stated that the matter could not be heard on the specified date. Relisting and Priority: The case is scheduled to be relisted on 09.01.2023. It was ordered that on this date, the matter would be given priority, being among the top three cases called after the urgent list. Submission of Statements of Costs: Both parties were directed to file their statements of costs of litigation before the next date of hearing.

Summary: Background: The case involves Mst. Shabnum Nisa as the petitioner and the Capital Development Authority (CDA), Islamabad, along with three other respondents. The specifics of the petition are not provided in the order sheet. ----Issues: Lack of appearance by the petitioner. Next steps for the proceedings. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome Absence of Petitioner: The petitioner, Mst. Shabnum Nisa, did not appear before the court. No representation or legal counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Order for Relisting: In light of the petitioner's absence, the court ordered the case to be relisted after two weeks. This relisting will presumably give the petitioner another opportunity to appear before the court or arrange legal representation.

Summary: Background: Mst. Shabnum Nisa filed a writ petition against the Capital Development Authority (CDA), Islamabad, and three other respondents. The precise details of the petition are not provided in the available information. ----Issues: Non-appearance of the petitioner before the court. Determination of the subsequent course of action in light of the petitioner's absence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Absence of Petitioner: Mst. Shabnum Nisa, the petitioner, failed to attend the court proceedings. There was no legal representative or counsel present on behalf of the petitioner. Order for Relisting: Due to the petitioner's non-appearance, the court decided to relist the case for hearing after a period of two weeks. The re-listing allows the petitioner another chance to appear before the court or arrange for legal representation.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, Sanghol Engineering Services (Pvt.) Ltd., filed multiple writ petitions against the Capital Development Authority (CDA) for refusing to issue tender documents for various contracts. The petitioner alleged that despite fulfilling the conditions and applying within the stipulated time, the CDA denied issuing the tender documents, thereby preventing them from participating in the competitive bidding process. ----Issues: 1- Can a procuring agency like the CDA refuse to issue tender documents to an applicant on the ground that the applicant has not met specific criteria at the initial stage? 2- Does the involvement of an applicant in litigation with any government, semi-government, or autonomous body justify disqualification from participating in the bidding process? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Issuance of Tender Documents: The court held that the CDA could not refuse to issue tender documents to an applicant based on the criteria for the award of the contract at the initial stage. The tender notice terms did not require the applicant to satisfy the condition of having at least three work orders for the last two financial years at the time of purchasing the tender documents. This condition should be evaluated during the bid evaluation process, not before issuing the tender documents. ---Litigation as a Disqualification: The court referenced the case of 7C’s Corporate Services Vs. Oil and Gas Development Company Ltd. (PLD 2017 Islamabad 115) to emphasize that litigation with any government, semi-government, or autonomous body could not be a ground for disqualification from the bidding process. Disqualifying a bidder on this basis would transgress the fundamental right of access to justice. The court noted that the petitioner had not been adjudged as a defaulter or a bad performer and had not been blacklisted by the CDA or any other government department in accordance with Rule 19 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004. The court allowed writ petition Nos. 1262/2021, 2031/2021, and 2235/2021, declaring the CDA's refusal to issue tender documents to the petitioner as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Writ petition No. 947/2021 was dismissed as it had been rendered infructuous. ----Citations/Precedents: 7C’s Corporate Services Vs. Oil and Gas Development Company Ltd. (PLD 2017 Islamabad 115)

Summary: Background:The case involves Civil Petition No. 4500 of 2017 and several miscellaneous applications brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, concerning the development and management of infrastructure in Islamabad. The petitioner, Pak Gulf Construction (Pvt) Limited, raised issues regarding the jurisdiction and responsibilities of the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and the Municipal Corporation Islamabad (MCI) in relation to service roads and parking areas adjacent to the Centaurus Tower.Issues:Whether the jurisdictional confusion between the CDA and MCI regarding the lease of land for parking areas violates the petitioner's rights.Whether the CDA has fulfilled its obligations, as directed by the court, regarding the maintenance of roads, garbage collection, sewage treatment, and tree plantation in Islamabad.Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Chairman of the CDA informed the court that the area in question falls under the jurisdiction of the MCI, which had leased the land for parking purposes. He indicated that draft rules were being prepared to clarify the MCI's authority to lease such land, and the court directed the Deputy Attorney General to ensure the notification of these rules within one week.The Chairman of the CDA provided updates on various initiatives undertaken by the authority to improve infrastructure and environmental conditions in Islamabad. These initiatives included road repairs, garbage collection, sewage treatment, tree plantation, and the installation of portable toilets. The court acknowledged the progress made by the CDA and emphasized the importance of continued efforts to address these issues effectively.Citations/Precedents:Articles 18 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan: Protection of rights and equal treatment under the law.Relevant municipal laws and regulations governing the jurisdiction and responsibilities of the CDA and MCI.

Summary: Background:The Capital Development Authority (CDA) appealed against the judgment of the Islamabad High Court dismissing their appeal. The case originated from a suit filed by Rana Munawar Khan regarding the possession and installment payment of a plot allotted to him by the CDA. The respondent alleged delays and encumbrances in possession, leading to a dispute over payment installments and late charges.----Issues:Whether the interpretation of clause (6) of the allotment letter by the lower courts was correct.Whether the rescheduling of installment payments and waiver of late charges by the CDA, based on the direction of the Federal Ombudsman, were valid.Whether the subsequent suit filed by the respondent was barred by the principle of res judicata.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the lower courts misinterpreted the evidence and clause (6) of the allotment agreement. It was found that the clause did not impose an obligation on the CDA to deliver possession free from encumbrances within one month; rather, it was the respondent's duty to take possession within that time frame. Additionally, the rescheduling of installment payments was not based on proper authority, and the waiver of late charges was not approved by the CDA board. The Court refrained from ruling on the res judicata issue due to the impending expiration of the lease. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the lower courts were set aside.----Citations/Precedents:Clause (6) of the lease agreementFederal Ombudsman's direction for rescheduling

Summary: Petition against allotment of plot in H -9 for construction of Mandir (Temple) (a) Constitutional Law – Rights of Minorities – Allocation of Land for Religious Purposes: ----Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 20, 25 – Capital Development Authority (CDA) Ordinance, 1960 – Allocation of Plot for Temple, Community Center, and Cremation Site in Islamabad The petitioners challenged the allotment of Plot No.2, Sector H-9/2, Islamabad, for the construction of a Hindu temple, community center, and cremation site. They argued that the plot allocation violated the Master Plan of Islamabad, lacked necessity given the small Hindu population in the area, and constituted a waste of public funds. The court held that the Master Plan provides a broad outline, while specific plot designations are determined by CDA through sector layout plans. Sector H-9/2 includes designated plots for minority graveyards, justifying the allocation. Additionally, the CDA halted construction due to the allottee’s failure to submit a building plan for approval, which must precede any construction activity under CDA rules. Disposition: The petition was disposed of with directions that CDA must ensure compliance with its rules and regulations before approving any construction. The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the court again if grievances persist in the future. (b) Constitutional Law – State Funding for Religious Structures – Role of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII): ----Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 2-A, 20 – Federal Funding for Construction of Temple in Islamabad Petitioners argued that Federal Government funding of PKR 100 million for constructing a temple violated constitutional principles and amounted to misallocation of public funds, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court noted that the Federal Government had not disbursed any funds and had referred the matter to the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) for its opinion. Therefore, the grievance concerning funding was deemed premature and without basis at this stage. -----Disposition: The petitioners' concerns regarding funding were declared infructuous as no funds had been released, and the matter remained pending before the CII.

Summary: Background:The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard multiple connected cases regarding environmental pollution in Sector I-9/1, Islamabad, primarily due to activities related to an industrial estate. The case involved various parties, including the Capital Development Authority (CDA), Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT), Margalla Hills National Park, and several individuals and entities associated with the development and operation of commercial establishments in the Margalla Hills.---Issues:Whether the construction and operation of commercial establishments in the Margalla Hills National Park were legal and compliant with environmental regulations.Whether the removal of trees and expansion of certain restaurants, such as Monal, in the Margalla Hills violated environmental protection laws.Whether the authorities had taken sufficient action to address environmental pollution and illegal construction activities in the area.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court declared all constructions and commercial activities in the Margalla Hills National Park illegal and against its status as a heritage site and national park. It ordered the immediate cessation of all such activities and the demolition of existing structures.The court directed the Acting Chairman of the CDA/Chief Commissioner of ICT to take action against illegal constructions and ensure the restoration of any trees that were cut down or removed during such activities, specifically mentioning the Monal restaurant.The expansion or construction work of Monal restaurant and any other commercial establishments in the Margalla Hills was stayed altogether.Notices were ordered to be issued to all alleged owners/occupants of premises in the Margalla Hills, requiring their appearance before the court on the next hearing date.The court required the submission of reports from the Punjab and ICT governments regarding crushing activities in the Margalla Hills before the next hearing.---Citations/Precedents:Environmental Protection Act of Pakistan

Summary: (a) Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 – ---- Commercialization charges – Industrial plot used for unauthorized commercial purpose – Imposition of charges and cancellation of allotment – Validity. The appellant was allotted an industrial plot for “PRCC, RCC, Steel Corepipe Industry” and later permitted for "Compression of Natural Gas in Cylinders." The appellant, however, established a CNG Filling Station without approval from the Capital Development Authority (CDA). The Court held: Permission for an industrial activity cannot be equated with approval for a commercial activity. Commercialization charges levied under CDA rules are determined based on the market value of land in the developed sectors. The comparison with conversion charges in Jhangi Syedan was invalid as it concerned privately owned land outside CDA-developed sectors. CDA acted lawfully by canceling the allotment after issuing show-cause notices and affording a hearing. Held: The imposition of commercialization charges and cancellation of allotment were justified. (b) Equity – ---- Discretionary relief – Conduct of the appellant – Failure to comply with show-cause notices and payment of charges. The appellant avoided payment of commercialization charges despite multiple show-cause notices issued since 1998 and engaged in prolonged litigation to delay compliance. The Court observed that such inequitable conduct disentitles the appellant to discretionary injunctive relief. (c) Urban planning – ---- Change of land use – Conversion from industrial to commercial – Criteria for determining charges. The Court upheld the CDA’s criteria for determining commercialization charges based on: Market price differences between industrial and commercial plots in CDA-developed sectors. Absence of bifurcation of the plot area, which obligated the appellant to pay charges for the entire plot. The agreed position of the appellant in a meeting with CDA to pay conversion charges. Held: The methodology adopted by CDA in determining the commercialization charges was lawful and reasonable. (d) Civil Procedure – ---- Interim injunction – Non-fulfillment of conditions for equitable relief – No prima facie case. The appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for interim injunction as: The CNG Filling Station was unauthorized. Multiple show-cause notices were ignored. Cancellation of the plot allotment followed due process, including the opportunity for a hearing. Held: The dismissal of the application for interim injunction was lawful and appropriate.