Summary: Background: The petitioners, owners of private forests in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), challenged the imposition of a complete ban on cutting, felling, extraction, sale, and transportation of trees and timber from forest lands, including private forests, imposed by Ordinance III of 2023 dated 26.06.2023. The petitioners argued that this ordinance violated their fundamental rights under the AJK Interim Constitution, 1974, specifically their right to property and to conduct business. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Ordinance III of 2023, which imposed a ban on activities related to trees and timber, was valid and enforceable. 2- Whether the petitioners’ fundamental rights to property and business were violated by the ordinance. 3- Whether the respondents could impose such a ban without providing compensation or following due process. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome --Validity of Ordinance III of 2023: The court noted that the ordinance, promulgated on 26.06.2023, had expired after four months as per Article 41 of the AJK Interim Constitution, 1974. Thus, the ordinance had "died its natural death," rendering the writ petitions against it infructuous. --Violation of Fundamental Rights: The court found that the complete ban imposed by the ordinance was arbitrary and violated the petitioners’ fundamental rights to property and to conduct business as protected under the AJK Interim Constitution, 1974. The ordinance failed to consider the economic impact on individuals who rely on forest-related activities for their livelihood. --Due Process and Compensation: The court emphasized that any deprivation of property must follow due process and include compensation, as established in previous judgments and legal principles. The court referenced PLD 1979 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 139, which underscores the need for legislative action and compensation when depriving individuals of property. --The court set aside the impugned ordinance and related notifications and circulars, directing the respondents to refrain from interfering in the peaceful business operations of the petitioners. The court also highlighted that any future policy regarding private forests should align with legal precedents and ensure the protection of fundamental rights. ----Citations/Precedents: Article 41 of the AJK Interim Constitution, 1974: Establishes the procedure and limitations for promulgating ordinances. PLD 1979 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 139: Emphasizes the need for legislative action and compensation for deprivation of property. Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Fatima Sharif Textile Kasoor and others [2009 PTD 37]: Upholds the principle of providing notice and adhering to natural justice. The court's decision ensures that any governmental action affecting private property and business must be reasonable, transparent, and within the bounds of the law, upholding the petitioners' fundamental rights.

Summary: Under Article 212 of the Constitution, people can claim damages against public servants over failure to fulfil their constitutional duties --- ''When on account of transgression, wrongful exercise of authority, abuse of power or reckless disregard for or neglect of public duties the constitutional rights are denied or breached, the citizen who has been wronged becomes entitled to claim various remedies including damages in common law for the tortuous acts'' --- The judge emphasizes the significance of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and underscores the solemn commitment of public office holders to uphold, defend, and protect the rights of citizens as enshrined in the Constitution. --- The judge criticizes the impunity for violations of the Constitution and the failure of the state to ensure citizens' inalienable rights. The case specifically highlights the misfeasance in public office and breach of duties by those responsible for organizing elections within the stipulated time frame. --- The opinion provides a detailed account of the events leading to the delayed appointment of caretaker governments and the subsequent failure to hold timely general elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. It mentions the legal proceedings initiated in response to these delays, including petitions filed in the Lahore High Court and Peshawar High Court. --- The judge emphasizes the role of the Election Commission of Pakistan and the crucial duty it holds in ensuring the timely conduct of general elections. The opinion further discusses the court's role in the matter, highlighting a suo motu case and the decisions made by a nine-member bench. --- The judge argues that any delay in holding general elections beyond the constitutionally mandated period constitutes a serious violation of citizens' rights and the foundational principles of the Constitution. The opinion concludes by asserting the gravity of such violations and the duty of the judiciary to address them, emphasizing the need to ensure the governance of the state by the people through their elected representatives. ---- Foundational Political Right: The Constitution grants citizens the political right to govern the state through chosen representatives. This right is considered fundamental, and its violation would render the Constitution ineffective. --- Violation Consequences: Violation of the foundational political right not only jeopardizes the Constitution but also affects other constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and dignity. --- Current Situation: The text points out a current violation of the Constitution where provincial assemblies were dissolved, and elections were not held within the prescribed time frame, leading to a constitutional impasse. --- Failures of Authorities: The President, Governors, and the Election Commission are criticized for failing to fulfill their constitutional duties, contributing to the violation. The judiciary's role in resolving the matter is also discussed. ---- Impunity for Constitutional Violations: The text argues that there is a historical pattern of impunity for constitutional violations by those in power, citing instances where martial law and coups were legitimized by the judiciary. --- Lack of Deterrence: Despite the existence of laws against high treason, the text asserts that there has been a lack of deterrence, with perpetrators often going unpunished, contributing to a culture of impunity. --- Remedies and Accountability: The text explores the remedies available to citizens for constitutional torts, emphasizing the need to make public powers accountable and to put an end to the culture of impunity. --- Citizens' Rights: The registered voters are portrayed as victims, deprived of their constitutional rights, and the responsibility is placed on the President, Governors, and the Election Commission for causing this loss. ---- Unique Remedies in Constitutional Tort: The text suggests that the Constitution provides unique rights for citizens to claim remedies for constitutional torts, allowing them to seek damages for violations of their constitutional rights by state authorities. --- "In our Constitution, the framers have expressly created the right to claim remedies for tortuous acts of the government or any person in the service of Pakistan or other authority empowered by law to levy any tax or cess and any servant of such authority acting in the discharge of his duties as such servant'' --- Justice Minallah says that when on account of transgression, wrongful exercise of authority, abuse of power or reckless disregard for or neglect of public duties the constitutional rights are denied or breached, the citizen who has been wronged becomes entitled to claim various remedies including damages in common law for the tortuous acts.The violation of a constitutional right is in itself an independent wrong and its violation is premised on the adage that there is no right without a remedy. In a few jurisdictions the right to seek a remedy for tortuous acts of public authorities is recognised in the Constitution while in most of the countries the jurisprudence has developed under the common law.It is a unique and distinguishable feature of the Constitution because it expressly confers the right to claim public law remedies for tortuous acts of three categories of public authorities. It is a right which appears to have escaped the attention of the courts nor has it been invoked by a victim of wrongful exercise of public power.It can create a formidable deterrence for violations of the Constitution and constitutional rights if the victims are enabled to effectively exercise this right. It is regrettable that no initiative has been made since the promulgation of the Constitution to establish special courts as contemplated by the framers.

Summary: Issue: The petitioners challenged the validity of the insertion of Section 5 TE through the Finance Act, 2022, to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. This section deemed that for the tax year 2022 and onwards, a resident person would be considered to have derived income equal to 5% of the fair market value of their capital assets situated in Pakistan, chargeable to tax at 20% under Division-VIII C of Part-I of the Ordinance. This specifically targeted immovable property owned by resident persons.---Arguments: The petitioners argued that this deeming clause to tax the fair market value of immovable property as income was not permissible, citing precedents from the Apex Court in the case of Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills and the Indian Supreme Court in the case of Harbhajan Singh Dhillon. They contended that taxing the capital value of an asset, particularly targeting immovable property alone, was beyond the competence of Parliament.---Decision: The court held that:In light of Entry No. 50 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, Parliament did not have the jurisdiction to impose income tax on immovable property.However, Parliament did have the jurisdiction to tax the capital value of assets per Entry No. 47 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution.The court did not agree with the reasoning of the Sindh High Court, which upheld the impugned legislation, nor did it find the curative judgment of the Lahore High Court, which suggested reading down the impugned legislation, appropriate.---Outcome: The court declared the challenged section concerning the taxation of the fair market value of immovable property as income beyond the Parliament's jurisdiction.

Summary: Facts: The appeal concerns the dismissal of several Canteen Stores Department (CSD) employees on disciplinary grounds. The Lahore High Court had previously dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the appellants against the order in favor of the respondents. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether CSD employees are considered in the service of the Armed Forces, thus barring the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199(3) of the Constitution. Additionally, it questioned whether the CSD falls under the definition of "person" within the meaning of Article 199(5) of the Constitution, allowing employees to seek reinstatement orders from the High Court.----Issue: The main issues were whether CSD employees are considered in the service of the Armed Forces, and whether the CSD qualifies as a "person" under Article 199(5) of the Constitution, enabling employees to obtain High Court orders for reinstatement.----Holding: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Lahore High Court and dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondents.-----Reasoning: The Court analyzed the history, origin, organizational structure, and control mechanisms of the CSD. It determined that CSD is a non-government commercial organization, not part of the government or the Armed Forces, and its employees do not hold positions in the service of Pakistan. The Court clarified that CSD employees' relationship with the department is governed by the ordinary law of Master and Servant, making their writ petition before the High Court incompetent under Article 199 of the Constitution.----Disposition: The appeal was allowed, resulting in the setting aside of the Lahore High Court's orders and the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the respondents. The judgment clarified the legal status of the CSD and its employees concerning constitutional protections and the jurisdiction of the High Court.

Summary: Background: A candidate (petitioner) for the Legislative Assembly for Constituency No. LA-XVI, Bagh-3, challenged the eligibility of the returned candidate (respondent). The petitioner argued that the respondent had received pay and allowances after submitting his resignation from the Assembly, thereby disqualifying him under Sections 31(xviii) and (xxi) of the AJ&K Elections Act, 2020. The petitioner sought a ruling from the Election Tribunal, which led to the consolidation of two writ petitions addressing identical legal questions and facts. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondent was disqualified from contesting the election due to receiving pay and allowances post-resignation. 2- Whether the Election Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the case. The validity and impact of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) proceedings and its immunity from judicial scrutiny. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Disqualification of the Respondent: The High Court acknowledged that the central issue was whether the respondent was a willful defaulter under Section 31(xviii) and (xxi) of the AJ&K Elections Act, 2020. An audit objection indicated that the respondent had received Rs. 1,218,339/- in pay and allowances post-resignation. However, the PAC had not mandated the recovery of this amount. --Jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal: The High Court affirmed that the Election Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction under Section 85 of the AJ&K Elections Act, 2020, and is equipped with all powers of a civil court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. --Public Accounts Committee Proceedings: The High Court recognized the PAC's immunity from challenge but noted that judicial review is permissible when constitutional provisions are violated. The PAC had concluded its proceedings without requiring the respondent to refund the pay and allowances received. --Direction to the Election Tribunal: The High Court did not overturn the Election Tribunal's order dated 21.06.2022 but directed the Tribunal to expedite the trial of the election petitions, avoiding unnecessary delays and ensuring a fair trial in accordance with the right to a fair trial under the AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974. --Expeditious Disposal: The Election Tribunal was directed to conclude the election petition proceedings fairly and expeditiously, observing the principle of the right to a fair trial. --Rights and Fair Trial: The High Court reiterated that every individual is entitled to a fair trial, and the judicial system must ensure that this fundamental right is upheld. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 85 and 91 of the AJ&K Elections Act, 2020 Article 4 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974 Perviaz Elahi v. Province of Punjab [PLD 1993 Lahore 595] Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujrat [(2006) 3 SCC 374] Meher Rohinton Minwalla v. Darayus Cyrus Minwalla [2014 CLC 1312] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [AIR 1978 SC 597] Khadijah Hussain v. State [2012 P.Cr.LJ 1847] Bilal Akbar v. Election Tribunal [PLD 2015 Lahore 272] Sardar M. Hussain Khan v. Dr. Najeeb Naqi [2014 SCR 149] Karachi Bar Associal v. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada [PLD 1988 Karachi 309] Masroor Ahsan v. Ardeshir Cowasjee [PLD 1998 SC 823] Pakistan v. Ahmad Saeed Kirmani [PLD 1958 SC 397] Tahir Mahmood v. Abdul Jabbar [PLD 1983 SC AJK 97] Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. PIAC and others [1994 SCMR 2232]

Summary: The court upheld the provincial government's decision to retake the MDCAT because of cheating. It references Section 17 of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022, which empowers provinces to conduct a single admission test. It suggests that in the absence of specific laws addressing unforeseen situations like cheating, the provincial government has the competence to cancel or retake the MDCAT. --- Balancing Educational Autonomy and Legal Standards:The document emphasizes the delicate balance between non-interference in academic matters and necessary intervention to ensure institutions operate within legal frameworks. It asserts that the Peshawar High Court did not interfere in the educational institution's affairs but rather upheld the government's decision within the bounds of the law. --- The judgement concludes by affirming the Peshawar High Court's judgment as well-reasoned and legally sound. It states that the court found the decision to retake the MDCAT just and in compliance with legal principles. --- Suo Motu Jurisdiction:The document provides a legal explanation of "suo motu" power, emphasizing that it refers to a court's inherent authority to initiate legal proceedings or take action on its own accord. It distinguishes instances where the court exercises this power based on personal knowledge or information from cases where the proceedings are initiated through a complaint. It argues that in this case, the High Court did not act on its personal knowledge but based on a complaint filed by an individual.

Summary: Caretaker governments can only handle day-to-day affairs and any approvals of a permanent nature fall under the jurisdiction of the elected Local Government ----According to the Punjab Local Government Act of 2022, development expenditures must be within the approved budget for the financial year --- Powers and duties of Local Government Functionaries, including the approval of housing schemes, lie with elected office bearers, not Administrators --- Principle that ??law cannot be suspended, unless declared ultra vires??, is enshrined in Federation of Pakistan v. Aitzaz Ahsan and another (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 61) --- Administrators can only deal with day-to-day affairs. The court emphasized that the Administrator's powers are limited to maintaining public services, and any approvals of a permanent nature fall under the jurisdiction of the elected Local Government.The court pointed out that, according to the Punjab Local Government Act of 2022, development expenditures must be within the approved budget for the financial year. The powers and duties of Local Government Functionaries, including the approval of housing schemes, lie with elected office bearers, not Administrators. The court cited legal principles that caretaker governments should only handle day-to-day affairs and avoid making irreversible decisions impacting the future.It was highlighted that the judgment in the Mallik Mazhar Hussain case, though suspended in a different division of the court in Multan, is still binding on Administrators and officials unless overruled by a higher bench. In conclusion, the court held that the request for Preliminary Planning Permission by the petitioner is beyond the powers of the interim Local Government, and thus, the petition was dismissed.

Summary: Background:This case involves review petitions filed by Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed, Chairman of Awami Muslim League, and the Government of Pakistan through the Secretary Ministry of Defence, concerning the Supreme Court of Pakistan's judgment dated 6 February 2019. The original judgment addressed issues related to orchestrated violent protests in Pakistan and the failure of successive governments to take actionable measures to prevent such incidents, thus undermining judicial warnings about the potential consequences.??Issues:The main issue addressed in the review petitions and applications was whether the concerns highlighted in the original judgment had been disregarded by successive governments, leading to continued violence and lack of accountability, and what measures should be taken to ensure the judgment's implementation.??Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, expressed disappointment that the concerns previously raised were ignored, leading to repeated instances of violence. It noted the non-fixation of review petitions as a manipulation tactic within the judiciary, acknowledging this as an error and affirming a commitment to transparency and responsibility. The court dismissed Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed?s review petition (CMA No.3577 of 2019) as he did not press it, attributing its filing to a misapprehension. Another application (CMA No.9219 of 2023) was discussed in relation to forming an inquiry commission to investigate the reasons behind the non-fixation of review petitions. Additionally, the application by Mr. Absar Alam Haider (CMA No.9648/2023) was dismissed as withdrawn, as he no longer sought to restore his position but wanted to address specific findings against him.??Citations/Precedents:The decision referenced various administrative and procedural aspects of the judiciary and government actions, underpinning the discussions with constitutional mandates:Pakistan Commissions of Inquiry Act, 2017: Pertinent to the formation of the inquiry commission.Constitution of Pakistan: Articles 189 and 190, concerning the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions and their implementation by executive authorities, and Article 204 regarding the constitutional power of contempt to ensure compliance with court judgments.---Quote:Every institution must act transparently and responsibly, and admit wrongdoing. The Supreme Court acknowledges that these matters were not fixed for hearing on account of internal manipulation. Federal Government has constituted a Commission to fix responsibility and implement judgment.

Summary: Background:Civil Petition No. 946 of 2022 was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging an order dated 21.12.2021 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Writ Petition No. 1325 of 2016. The petitioners opposed a partition application submitted by the respondents under section 135 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, leading to litigation.---Issues:Whether the petitioners' objection to the partition application was valid.Whether the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was justified.Whether the costs imposed by the High Court were paid or recovered.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court, consisting of Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Chief Justice, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, and Justice Athar Minallah, dismissed the petition after considering the arguments and evidence presented. The Court found that the petitioners' objections to the partition lacked valid grounds and resulted in unnecessary litigation. Additionally, the Court noted the failure of revenue authorities to implement the orders and recover costs imposed by the High Court, undermining the rule of law. As no illegality was found in the impugned order, the Court declined to grant leave and imposed costs of one million rupees on the petitioners, in addition to the costs imposed by the High Court. The costs were to be deposited with the concerned revenue officer for distribution to the respondents, and failure to comply within 30 days would result in recovery as arrears of land revenue.----Quote:Costs of one million rupees imposed as case was utterly frivolous and has consumed 14 years.

Summary: Background:General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf, the appellant, was convicted by a Special Court on December 17, 2019. He had the right to appeal against his conviction under section 12(3) of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976. However, when the criminal appeal against his conviction was filed on January 16, 2020, it was not numbered by the Institution Officer of the Supreme Court due to the appellant's failure to surrender himself, as per the proviso to rule 8 of Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. Consequently, a Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal (C.M. Appeal No. 6/2020) was filed against this office objection on February 14, 2020.---Issues:Whether the failure to number the criminal appeal due to the appellant's non-surrender was justified.Whether the delay in fixing the C.M. Appeal for hearing constitutes a violation of the appellant's right to appeal.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Chief Justice, Qazi Faez Isa, observed that the appellant had the right to appeal against his conviction within thirty days of the passing of the judgment, as stipulated by the relevant law. The delay in numbering the criminal appeal due to the appellant's failure to surrender was not justifiable, and the appellant cannot be faulted for the inordinate delay in the process. The Court emphasized that no one should suffer due to the Court's inaction. Additionally, an appeal is the right of every convict. Consequently, Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6/2020 was allowed, and the unnumbered criminal appeal was ordered to be numbered. The record of the Special Court was summoned to be put up along with the appeal for a hearing in Court. The Chief Justice further directed that the appeal be fixed in Court on November 21, 2023, along with other connected petitions.---Citations/Precedents:Benazir Bhutto v State (1999 SCMR 1619)Pakistan v General Public (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 6)