Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Constitutional jurisdiction--Scope--Validity--It should not be invoked where alternative forum under a special law, duly empowered to decide controversy is available and functioning. Where a special law provides legal remedy for the resolution of a dispute, the intention of legislature in creating such remedy is that disputes falling within ambit of such forum be taken only before it for resolution--Petition was dismissed. ----- Background: The petitioners, Muhammad Akram and others, challenged the decisions of the PCB’s Scrutiny Committee, which declared their cricket clubs "inactive" due to their failure to adopt the PCB's model constitution. Their appeals to the PCB Election Commission and the Board of Governors were rejected, partly because they did not attach the required demand draft of Rs. 100,000 with their appeals. The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, questioning the legality of the Scrutiny Committee's findings, the PCB Constitution's provisions, and the requirement to submit the demand draft. ---- Issues: ---- 1) Whether the petitioners’ clubs were wrongly declared inactive by the PCB's Scrutiny Committee. ---- 2) Whether the requirement to annex a demand draft of Rs. 100,000 for appeals violates the petitioners' fundamental right of access to justice. ---- 3) Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the petition, given the existence of an alternative remedy under the PCB’s internal procedures. ---- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition. The court held that: The PCB's Scrutiny Committee had conducted its review properly and declared the petitioners' clubs inactive because they failed to adopt the model constitution. The petitioners failed to meet the procedural requirement of submitting the Rs. 100,000 demand draft with their appeals, and this requirement did not violate their fundamental rights as it is refundable if the appeal is allowed. The court reiterated that Article 199 of the Constitution should not be invoked where an adequate alternative remedy exists, as in this case with the PCB’s internal appeal mechanisms. The court referenced Indus Trading and Contracting Co. v. Collector of Customs (2016 SCMR 842), emphasizing that special forums created by law should be utilized instead of directly approaching the High Court. ---- Citations/Precedents: Indus Trading and Contracting Co. v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi and others (2016 SCMR 842) M/o IPC through Secretary and others v. Arbab Altaf Hussain and others (2014 SCMR 1573) Islamabad High Court, W.P. No. 3644-2014 Outcome: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to seek remedies through the PCB's existing legal framework.

Summary: Plea of alibi at bail stage....Case of further inquiry. Bail granted.

Summary: Ss. 6,9 KPK Prohibition of Interest on Private Loans Act,2016Cases under the Act ibid are to be registered under the order of Justice of peace. Law bypassed in registration of case - case of further inquiry.