Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: S. 115 CPC .Ss. 3,4,11,12 & 13 NWFP Public Property (Removal of Enchroachment) Act, 1977.Bar on Jurisdiction of Civil Court.

Summary: Constitutional petition---Claim of petitioner was disputed by respondents and Revenue Authorities---Due process of law---Applicability---Due process of law was of wide import and its applicability varied from case to case in accordance with the set of facts and circumstances---Due process of law was also directly related to the rights, interest and entitlement of a person as recognized by law---Petitioners could not make out a prime facie case of their legal entitlement of possession of suit property---Entries in the revenue record about their alleged claim were under scrutiny before the concerned authorities---Term "due process of law" was not applicable in circumstances---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O. XLVII, R.1 & S.114-Review-Object and scope-Applicant had failed to point out any apparent error or mistake in the order under review-Object of power of review was to enable correction of error alone and nothing else-Review could not be equated with an appeal or for that matter it could not be made basis for rehearing of a case-Power of Court to review its own judgment/order was only discretionary-Reason for conferring discretionary power of review on a court was to prevent injustice being done-Case could not be re-opened on the pretext of review. Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner PLD 1970 SC 1; Fatima v. Shan Muhammad PLD 1975 SC 318 and Faqir Muhammad Khan v. Akbar Shah PLD 1973 SC 110 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan- -Arts. 199 & 203-Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court-Scope. (c) Constitution of Pakistan- -Arts. 199 & 203-Certiorari, writ of-Scope. (d) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199-Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court-Scope-Vacation Judge (during vacations) while sitting as a single member Bench could hear the cases pertaining to Division Bench at Katcha Peshi stage or for admission except otherwise provided by any special statute-Vacation Judge while hearing the Division Bench matters had to decide as to whether a case for admission was made out or not and he could also grant an interim relief but if no case for admission was made out then he could also dismiss the petition in limine. General Manager, Pearl Continental Hotel, The Mall Lahore/Rawalpindi v. Farhat Iqbal PLD 2003 SC 952 and Shah Jahan v. Amjad Ali, Hawaldar 2000 SCMR 88 distinguished. (e) Constitution of Pakistan- -Arts. 199 & 203-Certiorari, writ of-Scope-High Court while issuing a writ of certiorari would act in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction but not under its appellate or revisional jurisdiction. (f) Constitution of Pakistan- -Arts. 199 & 203-Certiorari, writ of-Principles to be considered while issuing writ of certiorari. The principles for issuing a writ of certiorari in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction can be summarized in the following manner: (i) Any order passed by the courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of appeal or revision has not been provided; (ii) A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting gross error of jurisdiction when subordinate judicia or quasi-judicial forum has acted without jurisdiction, by wrongly assuming the jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction, or acted in clear disregard of law or rules of procedure and where there is no procedure specified, has acted in violation of principles of natural justice, which ultimately occasioned the failure of justice; (iii) When any judgment/order of the subordinate court has miserably failed to follow the directions of law or the rules of procedure framed thereunder. (iv) A writ of certiorari can also be issued when the Court or Tribunal act illegally or in violation of the principles of natural justice. Failure on the part of statutory functionay or a Court to make a visible effect with diligent application of mind to adjective assertion or to strive in search of truth for dispensing justice, the same tantamount to failure to exercise jurisdiction. Dilawar Jan v. Gul Rehman PLD 2001 SC 149; Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst. Aqeel-un-Nisa 2001 SCMR 338 and Rahim Shah v. The Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan PLD 1973 SC 24 rel. (g) Jurisdiciton- -Court which had jurisdiction over the subject matter had jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right.

Summary: (a) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)- -S. 25-Federal Government (Finance Department) Letter No.(2) DFA (CAB)/2000 dated 6-7-2000-Amount of voluntary return and plea bargaining-Deduction of any portion of recovered amount as a share of NAB-Scope-Neither the Constitution nor National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 allowed the Federal Government or the NAB to deduct any portion of the recovered amount-Entire recovered amount on behalf of concerned Government should be deposited in its respective accounts-Any deduction out of such amount would be contrary to the provisions of Constitution and National Accountability Ordinance, 1999-No authority, department, organization or any Government was authorized to receive or collect any amount for any purpose from any person or body corporate or business entity except by enactment promulgated by Parliament or Provincial Government-Instructions and procedure provided by the Finance Department (vide notification) for deduction of 25% out of recovered amount had no statutory backing-Such deduction was contrary to the Constitution and was declared void by High Court; NAB authorities were restrained from deducting any amount from the amount recovered on account of voluntary return and plea bargaining-High Court directed that such amount be deposited in the Public Account of the Federation or in the Public Account of the Province within one month. (b) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)- -S. 25-Constitution of Pakistan, Art.77-Federal Finance Ministry Letter No.2(2) DFA (CAB) 2000 dated 6-7-2000-Deduction of 25% out of recovered amount by NAB authorities; amount received by NAB through voluntary return and plea bargaining under the Ordinance; amount received on behalf of Bank, Financial Institutions, company, body corporate, cooperative society statutory body or Authority; amount of fine other than the amount of voluntary return and plea bargaining with assistance of court and any asset and pecuniary resources found to be disproportionate to the known sources of income of holder of public office; Scope-Instructions and Procedure provided by the Federal Finance Department for deduction of 25% out of the recovered amount had no statutory backing, therefore such deduction was contrary to Art.77 of the Constitution and was illegal-Grant of reward to the Officers/Officials and making the NAB self-sufficient with regard to funds was to be managed in accordance with the Rules of the NAB authorities and within its allocated budget, instead of deducting 25% from the amount recovered under S.25 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999-High Court issued directions with regard to amount recovered under S.25 of the Ordinance. Following are the directions by the High Court with regard to amount recovered under S.25 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999:- (i) That the procedure/instructions issued by the Finance Ministry for deduction of amount as NAB's share from the amount recovered on account of voluntary return and plea bargaining is void. (ii) That the NAB authorities are restrained from deducting any amount from the amount recovered by them on account of voluntary return and plea bargaining as provided by S.25 of the Ordinance. (iii) That the entire amount received by the NAB through voluntary return and plea bargaining as per the NAB Ordinance shall be deposited in the Public Account of the Federation or in the Public Account of the Province as the case may be, within a period of one month. (iv) That the entire amount received by the NAB authorities on behalf of the concerned bank, financial institution, company, body corporate, cooperative society, statutory body or authority concerned shall be transferred in their respective accounts. (v) That the entire amount of fine other than the amount of voluntary return and plea bargaining recovered under the NAB Ordinance with the assistance of Court, shall directly be deposited in the Public Account of the Federation and Public Account of the Province, or any other authority, as the case may be. (vi) That any asset and pecuniary resources found to be disproportionate to the known sources of income of holder of public office, either in his name or in the name of any of his dependants or binamidars shall be forfeited to the concerned Government of which a person holding such public office belongs.

Summary: (a) Balochistan Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (VI of 1989)- -S. 5-Judicial officer-Ad hoc appointment and appointment on regular basis-Seniority-Determination-Procedure-Services of employees (respondents) was regularized and they were assigned seniority from the date of their initial appointment on ad hoc basis-Contention of appellant was that ad hoc service of a government employee could not be counted for the purposes of seniority or promotion to affect the rights of other employee who was regularly inducted into service prior to regularization of ad hoc employee-Validity-Service rendered by the employee on ad hoc basis prior to regularization could not be counted for the purpose of seniority but seniority should be counted from the date of substantive appointment-Ad hoc service unless regularized by the competent authority did not confer any right either for regular absorption nor same could be counted towards seniority except that it could be counted towards length of service for the purpose of pension if ultimately regularized-Appellant was appointed on regular basis prior to regularization of services of respondents (employees)-Appellant being selectee of Public Service Commission was required to rank senior to the respondents (employees) who were regularized through process of Administration Committee of High Court (Balochistan)-Administration Committee had no authority to regularize the services of respondents (employees) from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment retrospectively-Government or Administration Committee of the High Court had power to ignore consciously any section of Act or any rule that might prohibit or restrain it to do what they were attempting to do provided they limited their action to what was just and equitable-Administration Committee while regularizing services of respondents (employees) from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment had exercised its discretionary power in an arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious manner which had caused injury to the appellant-Illegal acts would remain illegal and would not become legal by efflux of time-Appellant as well as non-appealing judicial officers who were also appointed on regular basis prior to the regularization of ad hoc services of respondents (employees) were declared senior to the respondents (employees) whose ad hoc services were regularized retrospectively-Cases of appellant and as well as non-appealing judicial officers were referred to the Administration Committee of High Court (Balochistan) for consideration of their promotion to the next grade from the date when respondents were promoted-Appeal was disposed of accordingly. Wajahat Hussain, Assistant Director, Social Welfare, Lahore v. Province of the Punjab PLD 1991 SC 82 and The State through National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad v. Haji Nasim-ur-Rehman PLD 2005 SC 270 rel. (b) Civil service- -"Ad hoc appointment"-Concept and scope. (c) Notification-Void notification-Void notification could not be enforced. (d) Void order/notification- -Limitation-No limitation had been prescribed to competently and successfully challenge a void order and notification. Senate through Chairman v. Shahiq Ahmed Khan 2016 SCMR 460 rel. (e) Administration of justice- -Repository of executive, judicial or quasi-judicial power was required to act in accordance with law-Any order which had been passed in violation of law could not be protected simply because the repository of such power had the power to pass such order. Fazli Hakeem v. Secretary State and Fronteir Regions Division Islamabd 2015 SCMR 795 rel. (f) Judgment-Sikandar A. Karim v. State 1995 SCMR 387 rel. (g) Public functionaries- -Public functionaries were required to treat all citizens placed in similar circumstances alike-Public functionaries had to apply law, rule, regularization, notification or the policy as enunciated, interpreted and expounded by the superior courts. (h) Estoppel- -Principle of estoppel and limitation would not apply to illegal acts. (i) Words and phrases- -"Just"-Meaning (j) Words and phrases- -"Equitable"-Meaning. Shai Haq Baloch, Assistant Advocate General (Official Respondents). Dates of hearing: 11th September, 30th October, 2015, 25th March, 15th and 22nd April, 2016.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.