Summary: Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Civil service---Petitioner sought direction for disposal ofdepartmental appeal---Validity---Without discussing merits of the case and recording findings onmaintainability of constitutional petition, High Court observed that such issue should be left fordecision of Service Tribunal which was the relevant forum---High Court directed the competentauthority to decide appeal of employee pending before it within a specified period---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.Haji Kadir Bux v. Province of Sindh 1982 SCMR 582 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.302,324,34 PPCSimilar role in indiscriminate firing, wants further inquiry (Bail allowed)

Summary: S.20,28,Art.148 Limitation Act:Usufructuary mortgage, receipt of produce/rent,give fresh period of limitation

Summary: During the proceedings, the appellant submitted an application to be considered for the Lambardar position, which the District Collector accepted and returned for further processing. Ultimately, respondent No.3 was appointed as Lambardar in January 2014, leading the petitioner to file an appeal and a revision petition, both of which were dismissed. The petitioner argues that respondent No.3's application was submitted after the deadline, and the lower courts did not consider the recommendations and reports submitted by the revenue hierarchy. Respondent No.3's counsel contends that the District Collector had the jurisdiction to entertain applications even if filed at a belated stage. The court determined that respondent No.3's application was indeed submitted after the deadline and that he was underage at the time of the original deadline. Additionally, respondent No.3 did not provide a valid reason for the belated application. The court referred to Rule 17(2) and (3) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, which outline the procedures for the appointment of a Lambardar. It was noted that the District Collector had no authority to entertain an application beyond the deadline without a valid reason. Therefore, the court set aside the decisions of the lower authorities and remanded the case to respondent No.1 for a fresh decision, taking into account the candidates who submitted their applications before the original deadline and ensuring a fair and lawful process.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan-------Arts.9 & 199---Fundamental right to live---Polluted air---Constitutional jurisdiction of HighCourt---Scope---Right to live is a fundamental right under Art. 9 of the Constitution and itincludes right of enjoying pollution free air for full enjoyment of life---If anything endangers orimpairs quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Art.199 of theConstitution for removing that very thing and polluted air is one of them, for it is detrimental toquality of life.2014 SCMR 396 and Ms. Shehla Zia v. Wapda PLD 1994 SC 693 rel.(b) Constitution of Pakistan------Art. 18---Freedom of trade, business and profession---Scope---Right to freedom of trade,business and profession as enshrined in Art. 18 of the Constitution though fundamental, is notabsolute right and is always subject to reasonable restrictions which may be imposed in thelarger interest of society---Such freedom is always subject to the limits as may be imposed byState in the interest of public welfare---Every citizen has a right to carry on any business of hischoice however there is no right to carry on any business inherently dangerous or pernicious tothe society---Under the Constitution, a proper balance is intended to be maintained betweenexercise of right conferred by Art.18 of the Constitution and interests of the citizen in exerciseof his right to acquire hold or dispose of his property to carry on occupation, trade or business---In striking such balance the danger which may be inherent in permitting unfettered exercise ofright in a commodity must of necessity influence the determination of restrictions which may beplaced upon the right of citizen to that commodity.Pakcom Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2011 SC 44; Pakistan Muslim League (N)through Khawaja Muhammad Asif v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2007 SC 642 and Haji LalMuhammad v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2014 Pesh. 199 rel.(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 42 & 54---Balochistan Mineral Rules, 2002, R.70---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),O.VII, R. 11---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Rejection of plaint---Suit for declaration and injunction was filed by petitioner on the plea that he was awardedProspecting License for limestone crushing but authorities interfered in his area---Trial Courtrejected the plaint and the order was maintained by Lower Appellate Court---Validity---HighCourt keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, position of law, interests of societyand of those who were carrying on or intended to carry on business connected with crushing oflime stones issues directions to the authorities.Following are the directions issued by the High Court to the authorities.(i) it is directed that no person or group of persons shall be granted further permission or 'noobjection certificates' for carrying on the aforesaid business in the municipal limits of Quettacity;(ii) that the Provincial Government shall identify 'safer zones' to be certified by the EPAwithin a period of one month from the date of passing of present judgment and take steps forshifting of all existing stone crushing plants in the city into those safer zones within a period oftwo months from the date of present judgment;(iii) such safer zones shall not be located within the limit of Quetta city and shall not belocated within the limits of two kilometers from the national highways, habitats, hospitals, riversand schools;(iv) one kilometer from an inhibited village or any land recorded as forest in governmentrecords or any private land which is shown as cultivable in the revenue record;(v) each unit shall abide by the pollution control measures as approved by the EPA;(vi) Licensing Authority shall be under a legal obligation to inspect or get the inspection doneof each stone crushing plants at least twice a year;(viii) all stone crushing units situated at present locations shall be deemed to have been directedto be closed after a period of two months and shall not be permitted to carry on the business ofstone crushing on any ground or pretext whatsoever;(ix) the Provincial Government through Director General Mines and Minerals and theDirector General, EPA, are directed to submit the compliance report with the Registrar of HighCourt soon after the stipulated period for by the Bench perusal in Chamber;(x) copies of present judgment shall be furnished by the Registrar to all the concernedimmediately for taking up appropriate action and submission of compliance report within theperiod and time specified, and(xi) the Director General Mines and Minerals shall approve a new "crushing zone" and layoutplan should be prepared within a period of one month. The said crushing zone shall be setup withthe object of rehabilitating the existing stone crushers, who are being stopped from functioningas a result of present orders.