Summary: PLJ 2023 Islamabad 246 Present Babar Sattar J GHULAM MURTAZA - - Petitioner versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment Division Islamabad and 10 others - - Respondents WP No 1483 of 2022 decided on 2432023 Special Technology Zones Authority Ordinance 2020 - - - - - - S 7 (2) - - Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Arts 199 199 (1) (b) (2) - - Creation of Respondent No 2 - - Appointment of chairperson by Prime Minister - - Public Office - - Mala fide intention - - Transparent procurement process - - Respondent No 4 was appointed on permanent basis - - Allegations of blackmailing on part of Bol TV and its employees against Respondent No 2 - - Maintainability - - Role of petitioner as facilitator - - In exercise of authority under Article 199 (1) (b) (2) of Constitution this Court is vested with authority to ask a public office holder who is holding or purporting to hold a public office to justify under what authority of law such public office holder claims to hold office - in - question - - It is a settled matter that a public office holder can exercise only such authority as is vested in him or her by law - - As petitioner has failed to satisfy Court that he is a bona - fide petitioner who was in filing this petition not motivated by any insidious purpose but by object of seeking to uphold rule of law in public interest that it serves - - It is settled law that a Court must at outset satisfy itself that a petition of quo warranto has not been filed for any collateral purpose with an oblique motive - - Petitioner was an employee of BOL at a time when BOL was seeking issuance of a license from Respondent No 2 - - For purposes of seeking issuance of a license by Respondent No 2 BOL initiated litigation before Sindh High Court - - Petitioner personally participated in a media campaign impugning actions of Respondent No 2 and its employees - - The respondent employees of Respondent No 2 have filed affidavits in support of their allegations of blackmail on part of BOL and petitioners role as a facilitator in such enterprise - - Petition has not been filed by a bona - fide petitioner or in interest of ensuring that appointments to public offices are made in accordance with law - - Petition dismissed [Pp 250 254 255] A B C D E F G 1997 SCMR 641 PLD 2007 SC 642 2023 SCMR 162 2021 PLC (CS) 1394 PLD 2018 SC 114 PLD 2011 SC 516 PLD 1969 SC 42 ref Ms Sher Afzal Khan Marwat Naila Noreen and Ch Usama Tahir Advocates for Petitioner Barrister Asghar Khan Ali Roshan Gillani and Syed Buland Sohail Advocates for Respondent No 2 Mr Haider Waheed ASC and Barrister Syed Shehroz Bakhtiar for Respondents No 2 and 4 to 10 Mr Aqeel Akhtar Raja Assistant A - G Mr M Sultan Rao Section Officer Estb Div IslamabadJudgement Result:Petition dismissed

Summary: The representatives argued that the Lahore High Court might lack territorial jurisdiction over the matter since the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. (Inquiry No.111/2022) was issued by FIA CTW Islamabad to the petitioner, even at his Islamabad address. They cited legal precedents, including "Sandalbar Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Revenue and others" (PLD 1997 SC 334) and "Ch. Abdul Razzaq Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others" (PLD 1998 Lahore 394), to support their contention. They further invoked cases like "Dossani Travels Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Messrs Travel Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. and others" (PLD 2014 SC 1) and "Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Schools Education Department, Lahore and others Vs. Abdul Rehman and others" (2022 SCMR 25), asserting that the jurisdiction of the court under Article 199 of the Constitution was ousted.Considering the uncontested contentions, the court recalled the restraining order dated 06.12.2022 passed in C.M.No.1-2022, allowing C.M.No.1-2023 and dismissing C.M.No.1-2022.

Summary: On 13th of July 2023, The Lahore HC held that causing trauma through arrest after arrest for extorting information or confession is an offence under section 337K of the Pakistan Penal Code --- The petitioner sought information about criminal cases and pending inquiries against him, along with copies of FIRs and inquiries. The petitioner also requested a Stress Nuclear Sestamibi scan, a well-ventilated vehicle for transportation to courts, and protection against arrest in unknown criminal cases. The petitioner, aged 76, claimed political victimization, expressing distress due to successive arrests and immediate re-arrests over the past 1? months.The petitioner's counsel argued that they approached the court under Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution, seeking enforcement of fundamental rights. The petitioner had obtained release orders in most cases but remained in custody for FIR No.5/23 ACE Gujrat and FIR No.1150/2023 Ghalib Market, Lahore. The counsel cited a case from the Peshawar High Court for an interim restraining order against arrest in unknown FIRs.The Additional Advocate General countered that the petitioner frequently approached the court without substantive grounds. The court examined reports from Anti-Corruption Establishment and FIA, listing various cases against the petitioner. The petitioner had obtained bail in most cases but faced re-arrests. The court noted concerns about the practice of successive arrests, emphasizing the need for genuine cause for non-appearance.The court discussed legal precedents, emphasizing the protection of fundamental rights and condemning the misuse of arrest powers for malicious intent. It stated that arrest after arrest, without proper investigation, violates fundamental rights and due process. The court granted protective pre-arrest bail for FIRs, directing the petitioner to approach the concerned courts within 10 days after release. The order prohibited arrest in unknown FIRs and pending inquiries, forwarding the matter of a medical scan and transportation to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home).

Summary: Background: The petitioners, owners of flour mills in District Attock, filed a constitutional petition seeking a writ of mandamus for the enhancement of their wheat quota. They argued that the respondents, specifically the Punjab Food Department, had decreased the wheat supply to their mills without any legal justification. The petitioners claimed that the wheat quota allocation was based on the population's needs, and the reduction was affecting their ability to operate effectively. They also contended that the State had a constitutional duty to provide basic necessities, including wheat, as per Article 38 of the Constitution of Pakistan. -----Issues: 1- Do the petitioners have a right to claim an enhancement of the wheat quota? 2- Is the reduction of the wheat quota by the respondents legally justified under the Wheat Release/Milling Policy, 2022-23? 3- Does the State's obligation under Article 38 of the Constitution extend to providing an enhanced wheat quota to flour mill owners for commercial purposes? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Right to Claim Enhancement: The court held that the petitioners, as flour mill owners, do not have a vested right to claim an enhancement of the wheat quota. The allocation of wheat is a matter of policy within the domain of the executive branch. Legal Justification for Quota Reduction: The respondents provided a comprehensive report explaining the wheat quota reduction. The court found the explanation logical, as the allocation was based on various factors, including population growth, wheat production in the area, availability of private wheat stocks, and the needs of the urban population. The gradual decrease was also due to the availability of wheat in the open market and other government support programs. State’s Obligation Under Article 38: The court held that Article 38(d) of the Constitution, which mandates the State to provide basic necessities of life, does not extend to the petitioners, who are flour mill owners seeking to enhance their commercial interests. The constitutional provision is intended to support citizens unable to earn a livelihood due to infirmity, sickness, or unemployment, not to promote the business of commercial entities. The petition was dismissed, with the court reaffirming that policy matters, including the allocation of wheat quotas, fall within the exclusive domain of the executive. The court emphasized that it cannot interfere in such policy decisions unless there is evidence of illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fide intent. -----Citations/Precedents: Ibrahim Flour and General Mills, District Sheikhupura vs. Government of Punjab (PLD 2008 Lahore 184) Dossani Travels Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. and others (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 1) The court reiterated the principles of trichotomy of powers, whereby the executive is responsible for policy decisions, and the judiciary’s role is limited to interpreting the law.

Summary: The petitioner sought the recovery of her mentally disordered brother, Syed Qadeer Abbas, from the alleged illegal custody of Respondents No.3 to 8. The petitioner claimed that these respondents intended to take control of Qadeer Abbas's 19 kanals 09 marlas land in Chak No.543/E.B. The court issued notices to Respondents No.3 to 8 and directed the SHO, Police Station Machiwal, District Vehari, to produce Qadeer Abbas.The SHO reported that Qadeer Abbas had been missing for 4/5 years, and the petitioner had applied for his death certificate in May 2022, stating that he died on 15.05.2022. The SHO provided details about the inheritance mutation, land transactions, and a conflict between the petitioner and Respondent No.4. FIR No.185/2023 was lodged on 25.02.2023 by Respondent No.4.After considering the SHO's report and confronting the petitioner's counsel, the court found that the petitioner had filed the petition with false assertions and submitted a false affidavit. The court held that the petitioner had rendered herself liable to criminal prosecution and contempt of court.The judgment cited various legal precedents to underscore the imposition of costs for false or vexatious claims, including cases such as Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [(1995) 1 SCC 421], Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana [(1995) 3 SCC 757], B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Association and others [(2006) 11 SCC 731], K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others [(2008) 12 SCC 481], Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi [(2012) 4 SCC 307], ABCD v. Union of India and others [(2020) 2 SCC 52], and Qazi Naveed ul Islam v. District Judge, Gujrat, etc. (PLD 2023 SC 298).The judgment also referenced sections 35 and 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as well as sections 147, 148, 491, and 547 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.). It emphasized the court's authority to impose costs in criminal matters and cited specific rules from the Lahore High Court Rules & Orders governing the imposition of costs in habeas corpus petitions.In line with these legal principles, the court invoked its inherent powers and dismissed the petition with costs of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner was held to have incurred criminal liability and was deemed liable for contempt of court, for which separate proceedings would be initiated.

Summary: Issues:Whether the collection of DNA samples via buccal swabs from individuals arrested for violent crimes violates the Fourth Amendment.Whether such DNA collection can be deemed reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.----Holding:The Supreme Court held that the collection of DNA samples via buccal swabs from individuals under arrest does constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. However, it may be considered reasonable given the government's interest in identifying perpetrators and advancing law enforcement objectives. Therefore, such DNA collection is permissible under the Fourth Amendment.----Reasoning:Justice Kennedy's opinion reasoned that the reasonableness of a search is determined by weighing legitimate governmental objectives against the intrusion on an individual's privacy. DNA testing aids law enforcement in identifying perpetrators and is crucial in advancing the government's interests. The intrusion of a cheek swab is minimal compared to the significant government interest and the efficacy of DNA identification. Additionally, an individual's privacy expectations diminish when taken into custody, akin to police practices of fingerprinting and photographing arrestees.----Precedents:The court cited Maryland v. King, where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of DNA collection from arrestees. The decision emphasized society's interest in identifying and prosecuting culprits outweighing privacy concerns.----Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that DNA collection via buccal swabs from individuals under arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The government's interest in identifying perpetrators and advancing law enforcement objectives justifies the minimal intrusion on privacy. Therefore, such DNA collection is permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Article 10-A ----Right to a fair trial---Scope---Petitioner challenged the dismissal of applications for rejection of a complaint filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on grounds of lack of authorization and time-bar under Section 137(4) of the Elections Act, 2017. Held, the trial court failed to address crucial legal questions, thus violating the petitioner’s right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 10-A. (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 – Section 439 ----Revisional jurisdiction---Scope---High Court’s supervisory powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are broader than appellate jurisdiction and allow interference in cases where subordinate courts fail to address or resolve critical legal issues. In this case, the trial court’s failure to provide adequate reasons or resolve legal controversies warranted remand for a fresh decision. (c) Elections Act, 2017 – Section 190(2) ----Complaint by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP)---Authorization requirement---Scope---Complaint filed under Section 190(2) of the Elections Act must be initiated by ECP or a duly authorized person. The Court emphasized that if authorization is lacking or procedurally defective, the complaint could be invalid. The trial court’s failure to determine whether the District Election Commissioner was properly authorized necessitated remand. (d) Elections Act, 2017 – Section 137(4) ----Limitation on filing criminal complaints---Scope---The petitioner argued that a complaint filed after 120 days from the submission of asset statements was time-barred. Held, the interpretation of Section 137(4) as mandatory or directory requires detailed examination of legislative intent, particularly whether time limitations restrict ECP’s constitutional powers under Articles 218(3) and 222. (e) Procedural Law – Proper adjudication of issues ----Remand for detailed findings---When a subordinate court dismisses applications without resolving legal controversies or providing adequate reasons, higher courts may remand the matter for fresh adjudication. In this case, the trial court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s application was cursory and lacked substantive reasoning. Disposition The Islamabad High Court set aside the impugned order of the trial court and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The trial court was directed to decide the petitioner’s application within seven days, addressing the legal issues thoroughly and providing detailed reasons. Key Legal Issues Identified for Decision Authorization under Section 190(2): Whether the District Election Commissioner was duly authorized by the ECP to file the complaint. Validity of Authorization: Whether ECP’s decision dated 21.10.2022 constitutes valid authorization for filing the complaint. Effect of Lack of Authorization: Whether lack of proper authorization renders the complaint invalid (non est) or can be ratified subsequently. Limitation under Section 137(4): Whether the 120-day limitation period applies to ECP-initiated complaints and whether it is mandatory or directory. Constitutional Interpretation: Whether interpreting Section 137(4) as mandatory limits ECP’s constitutional powers under Articles 218(3) and 222. Outcome Petition allowed; trial court directed to decide the pending application afresh within seven days, ensuring detailed reasoning and compliance with the law and constitutional principles.

Summary: Application for restitution:The basic principle underlining the right of restitution is that the wrong done to a party by the act of the Court should be rectified, however, in order to grant restitution, the Court has to satisfy itself that: (i) The restitution sought must be in respect of the decree or the order, which has been varied or reversed;(ii) The party applying for restitution should be entitled to a benefit under reversing or varying decree or the order; and (iii) The relief claimed must be consequential on the reversal or variation of the decree or the order. Once it was held by the Court that the ex-parte judgment and decree against respondent No.1/ tenant was not correct or being based upon the law and facts and the same was set aside then the respondent No.1 was legally entitled to recover the possession of the rented house in terms of section 144 C.P.C.The principle of the doctrine of restitution is that on the reversal of a decree or order of eviction, the law imposes an obligation on the party to the eviction application who received the benefit of the erroneous decree or order of eviction to make restitution to the other party for what he has lost. This obligation arises automatically on the reversal of modification of the decree/order of eviction and necessarily carried with it the right to restitution of all that has been done under the erroneous decree/order of eviction and the Court/ Controller in making restitution is bound to restore the parties, so far as he can be restored, to the same position he was in at the time when the Controller by its erroneous action has displaced him from.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 9, 14, 23, 24, 25 & 199 Climate Change—Failure of Federal and Provincial Governments to Address Climate Change—Violation of Fundamental Rights—The Supreme Court observed that climate change poses a serious existential threat to the people of Pakistan and directly impacts their fundamental rights, including the right to life (Art. 9), dignity (Art. 14), and property (Arts. 23 & 24)—Held, despite the magnitude of the threat, no comprehensive climate change policy or preventive strategies have been effectively implemented by the Ministry of Climate Change or the Provincial Governments—Provincial Chief Secretaries admitted the lack of dedicated budget allocations for climate change mitigation and adaptation in recent provincial budgets—Punjab reported obtaining a $50 million loan from the Asian Development Bank for a Climate Change Fund, but no supporting documentation was placed on record—Ministry of Climate Change and Provincial Governments directed to submit comprehensive climate change policies, action plans, and evidence of their implementation before the next hearing—Failure to address climate change constitutes a violation of constitutional rights, and the Court emphasized the need for urgent preventive action and strategic planning. Cited Cases: • None cited directly in the judgment. (b) Pakistan Climate Change Act, 2017 ----S. 5—Constitution of Authority—Appointment of Members—Delay—Federal Government reported receiving 752 applications for five vacant Member posts of the Climate Change Authority—The Supreme Court directed that the selection process must be completed within fifteen days, and a notification of the duly constituted Authority be submitted to the Court—Delay in filling key positions of the Authority undermines the implementation of the Climate Change Act and hampers policy execution. (c) Administration of Justice ----Responsibility of Public Authorities—Good Governance—Accountability—Public authorities, including the Ministry of Climate Change and Provincial Governments, are duty-bound to act with diligence, transparency, and accountability in addressing existential threats like climate change—Failure to allocate dedicated budgets or implement preventive strategies reflects administrative negligence—Authorities were directed to ensure the presence of senior officials at the next hearing, along with comprehensive reports on actionable strategies. (d) Environmental Governance ----Budget Allocation for Climate Change—Accountability of Resources—The absence of dedicated budgetary allocations in provincial budgets for climate change adaptation and mitigation was noted with concern—Punjab’s reliance on external loans for establishing a Climate Change Fund underscores the lack of proactive financial commitment—Court stressed the need for consistent and sustainable budgetary provisions across all provinces to address climate change effectively. Disposition: Order passed—Federal and Provincial Governments directed to submit comprehensive climate change strategies, including budget allocations, preventive measures, and actionable plans, before the next hearing—All relevant officials and representatives were ordered to ensure their presence in the next hearing scheduled for 15th July 2024—Copy of the order directed to be placed before the Prime Minister for perusal—Ms. Ayesha Khan, Regional Managing Director, Acumen, Islamabad, appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court on the matter.

Summary: Pending.