Summary: Facts:Haroon-ur-Rashid, Deputy Director (Revenue) at LDA, was suspended and issued a show cause notice for alleged irregularities. After contesting the notice, he was compulsorily retired from service. His departmental appeal was dismissed, and his writ petition challenging the retirement was also dismissed by the Lahore High Court on the grounds that the statutory rules of service were not applicable, and the principle of master and servant applied.---Legal Issue:The main issue was whether the disciplinary action taken under PEEDA, a statutory enactment, against an employee of a statutory authority like LDA, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan.----Judgment:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. The Court held that employees of statutory authorities, when proceeded against under a statutory framework like PEEDA, can seek redress under Article 199 of the Constitution.---Reasoning:The Court clarified that despite LDA employees being governed by non-statutory rules, the disciplinary proceedings were conducted under PEEDA, which is a statutory framework. Therefore, actions taken under PEEDA are subject to judicial review under writ jurisdiction. The Court distinguished between civil servants and employees of statutory bodies for the purpose of appealing departmental actions, stating that while civil servants may appeal to the Service Tribunal, employees of statutory bodies like LDA, when subject to disciplinary actions under a statute like PEEDA, can invoke the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199.

Summary: Issues:1)Whether the trial or appellate court can assume that the recovered quantity of Chars Garda should be processed to determine its net quantity for sentencing.--2)Whether the quantum of sentence under Section 9(a), (b), or (c) of CNSA should correspond to the actual recovered quantity of the narcotic substance.--3)Whether, in cases involving multiple convicts, the total quantity of the narcotic substance should be equally divided among them for the purpose of sentencing.---Judgment:The Supreme Court held that the High Court's approach in reducing the quantity of the narcotic substance based on assumptions of weight reduction upon processing, and the distribution of the total quantity among convicts for sentencing, lacked legal basis and justification. The Supreme Court clarified that the quantum of sentence should be based on the actual recovered quantity of the narcotic substance without any reduction or distribution among convicts. The points for determination were answered negatively, affirming that the exact quantity of the recovered narcotic substance should be the basis for sentencing.---Rationale:The Supreme Court found the High Court's methodology in reducing sentences based on processed weight assumptions and distribution among convicts to be arbitrary and without legal support. The Court emphasized that the CNSA does not permit such assumptions or practices and that sentences should directly correlate with the recovered quantities as stipulated by the Act. The Supreme Court also referred to general legal principles applicable to criminal liability, which do not support the distribution of the total recovered quantity among convicts for sentencing purposes.---Decision:The Supreme Court disapproved of the High Court's rationale for sentence reduction and clarified the legal position regarding the sentencing under the CNSA, emphasizing the need to adhere to the actual quantities of narcotics recovered in determining sentences. The appeals were decided in favor of the appellants, restoring the original convictions and sentences as determined by the trial courts.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background: The petitioner contested the dismissal of his application under Section 12(2) read with Section 151 and Order I, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, by the learned Civil Judge. The dispute centered around a jointly owned property between the petitioner and his former wife. The petitioner’s 50% share had been forfeited to the Federal Government following his conviction in an accountability case. His former wife sought the partition and auction of the property. The petitioner, not originally a party to the suit, argued that he should have been included. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner’s application for setting aside the preliminary decree and subsequent orders was maintainable. -----2- Whether the auction proceedings for the disputed property should be stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision on the petitioner’s criminal petition. -----3- Whether the civil court lacked jurisdiction due to incorrect valuation of the suit property. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome --Application Dismissal: The petitioner's application was dismissed as he no longer had a legal share in the property due to the finality of the accountability court’s conviction and forfeiture orders. --Auction Proceedings: The Islamabad High Court held that the pendency of the petitioner’s criminal petition in the Supreme Court did not justify staying the auction proceedings. The court underscored the necessity of compliance with the law during the auction. --Jurisdiction and Valuation: The court rejected the petitioner’s argument on jurisdiction, holding that the suit's valuation was correctly amended and finalized by the civil court. The valuation clause was in line with legal provisions and had attained finality. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the civil revision petition, upholding the civil court’s jurisdiction, valuation, and the validity of its orders. It also directed the local administration to ensure smooth auction proceedings. -----Citations/Precedents Ajiruddin Mondal & Another v. Rahman Fakir & Others (PLD 1961 SC 349) Zafeer Gul v. Dr. Riaz Ali & Others (2015 SCMR 1691) Mst. Sabira Bibi & Others v. Hikmat Khan & Others (2012 CLC 292) Amir Fayaz Ali Khan v. Member, Board Revenue Judicial-1 (PLD 2008 Lahore 10) Shah Wali v. Ghulam Din alias Gaman & Another (PLD 1966 SC 983) Naeem Ullah Khalid & Another v. Dr. Hafiz Mushtaq Ahmad & 3 Others (2007 YLR 1418)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending