Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Frivolous, misconceived, ill-advised and negligently filed applications are deprecated by courts of law as the same have adverse impact on speedy dispensation of justice, result in wastage of time and energy of the court and cause hardship to genuine litigants.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Primarily Courts are meant to advance the cause of substantial justice and not to defeat legitimate rights on mere procedural technicalities. Where a suit is dismissed as infructuous and the dispute inter se the parties has not been decided on merits, the former suit will not operate as an impediment in the way of the subsequent suit. In such situation, the principle of Res judicata would not be applicable.

Summary: (a) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----S. 221---Rectification of mistake apparent on record---Doctrine of merger---Tribunal’s liberty to decide unattended ancillary issues after High Court judgment---WWF / calculation errors---Leave granted to consider, inter alia: (i) whether High Court erred in holding Tribunal’s order merged with judgment dated 28.04.2016 despite express preservation of jurisdiction over unattended issues; (ii) whether correction of statutory levy (WWF) and patent calculation errors in light of binding Supreme Court precedents is rectification under S. 221; (iii) whether invoking merger against never-adjudicated issues renders Tribunal’s liberty clause otiose. Disposition: Leave granted; paper books to be prepared; matter fixed before a three-member Bench after four months. Dated 05.05.2026. Not approved for reporting.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302(b) & 302(c)---Right of private defence---Exceeding the right---Injured accused---Only one knife injury on back of deceased’s chest attributed to petitioner; co-accused with similar attributed role acquitted by High Court---Petitioner himself sustained five injuries---Held, petitioner exercised right of self-defence but exceeded it; case falls under S. 302(c) PPC. Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and partly allowed; conviction under S. 302(b) set aside and converted to S. 302(c) with sentence of 15 years R.I.; compensation and default sentence maintained. Approved for Reporting.

Summary: (a) Service law---Departmental inquiry---Standard of proof---Preponderance of evidence---Nexus with alleged misconduct---Fake transfer/posting order---Petitioner, a Constable in the Frontier Reserve Police, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, since 2014, applied on 27.02.2020 for transfer to his home district; on 29.06.2020 he was informed that a transfer/posting order dated 11.06.2020, purportedly issued by the CPO, Peshawar, was fake and bogus---He was charged with having managed the order under a fake signature of A.I.G. Establishment; after inquiry he was removed from service on 24.08.2020; departmental appeal was dismissed on 30.09.2020---Service Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, converting removal into stoppage of two increments for two years without cumulative effect, and treating the period out of service as leave without pay---Held, that in departmental inquiries the standard of proof was based on the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence, and not strict proof beyond reasonable doubt; even on that standard there must be some material connecting the delinquent with the alleged misconduct, which was conspicuously absent---Focus of the inquiry officer was upon Fawad Khan, PA/Stenographer, and Asadullah/Constable, who had brought the fake order on record, and there was no mention that the petitioner had any link with the charges---Mere submission of an application for transfer to his home district could not be treated as an element of guilt, as such a request before the competent authority was not impermissible---No evidence connected the petitioner with the fake order, of which he claimed ignorance until 29.06.2020. (b) Service law---Penalty---Parity---Where no misconduct is proved---Tribunal, despite recording that the petitioner had no direct role in issuance of the fake transfer/posting order or the alleged bogus signatures, proceeded to maintain a reduced penalty on the basis of parity with the official who first brought the fake order on record and had been treated leniently---Held, that such approach was legally untenable; in the absence of any proved misconduct, even a minor penalty could not be sustained---Purpose of a departmental inquiry was to determine whether misconduct was made out; a decision was irrational if no reasonable person could have arrived at it---Where no misconduct was established, the question of maintaining or reducing the penalty did not arise---Finding of no role and imposition of a penalty could not stand together---Impugned judgment failed the test of reasonableness. (c) Service law---Proportionality of penalty---Held, that proportionality examined the relationship between the objective the executive branch wished to achieve, which had the potential of infringing upon a human right, and the means chosen to achieve that objective---Courts will quash exercises of discretionary powers in which there is not a reasonable relationship between the objective sought and the means used, or where punishments imposed by administrative bodies are wholly out of proportion to the relevant misconduct---An administrative measure must not be more drastic than necessary; proportionality required a rational connection between means and ends, along with minimum impairment of the rights or interests in question---No misconduct having been established, the very foundation required to sustain any penalty was missing---Maintaining a reduced penalty despite recording absence of any direct role was not only disproportionate but legally untenable---In the absence of a proven charge, even a minor penalty could not be justified. Cited Cases: • Faisal Ali v. District Police Officer, Gujrat and another 2025 SCMR 92 • Ijaz Badshah v. Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others 2023 SCMR 407 • Sabir Iqbal v. Cantonment Board, Peshawar through Executive Officer and others PLD 2019 SC 189 Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed; judgment dated 14.05.2024 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar in Service Appeal No.12778 of 2020 set aside; appellant directed to be reinstated into service (if not already reinstated in terms of the Tribunal's judgment); period during which he remained out of service to be treated as leave without pay. (Civil Petition No.3691 of 2024, Supreme Court of Pakistan, decided 05.05.2026 at Islamabad; Shahid Waheed, Musarrat Hilali and Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, JJ. Approved for reporting.)

Summary: (a) Supreme Court Rules, 2025 (as adopted by the Federal Constitutional Court)----O. V, R. 1(6) (Expln. II), O. XVIII, R. 5 & O. III, R. 1---Constitution of Pakistan----Art. 175E(3)---Registrar---Powers---Return of petition/appeal as "not entertainable" on ground of non-satisfaction of ingredients of Art. 175E(3), absence of questions of public importance relating to enforcement of fundamental rights, individual grievance and non-availing of alternative remedy---Whether Registrar may decide maintainability---Appeal under O. V, R. 3 against objection order and return notice of Registrar dated 14.02.2026, heard in chambers---Held, Registrar functions as executive head of the office and his powers are mostly administrative and ministerial, some being procedural to regulate filing and processing of cases; these are confined to ensuring compliance with procedural requirements such as scrutiny of form, limitation and other codified defects, and do not extend to adjudicating substantive or justiciable issues---Determination of maintainability, particularly where it involves interpretation of constitutional provisions, is a judicial function requiring application of legal mind and adjudication upon rival contentions; it lies exclusively within the domain of the Court and cannot be assumed by the Registrar, as to hold otherwise would confer judicial powers on an administrative functionary, neither contemplated by the Rules nor consistent with the constitutional scheme of separation of powers---Limited exception under R. 1 of O. V (Registrar exercising certain powers of the Court in relation to specified applications in pending matters) is procedural in nature and does not encroach upon the Court's authority to decide substantive justiciable issues---Action of Registrar in declaring the appeal not entertainable and returning it travelled beyond the authority conferred under the Rules. Cited Cases: • Qausain Faisal v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior PLD 2022 SC 675 • Farman Ali v. Muhammad Ishaq PLD 2013 SC 392 • All Pakistan Newspapers Society v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2004 SC 600 • Muhammad Ahsan Abid v. Makhdoom Khusru Bakhtiar PLD 2022 SC 712 (b) Supreme Court Rules, 2025----O. V, R. 1(6), Expln. II & O. XVIII, R. 5---"Scandalous" petition---Scope of Registrar's power to refuse to receive petition---Held, these provisions are the only ones authorizing the Registrar to refuse to receive a petition, and that too on limited grounds, namely where the petition has not been filed in accordance with the Rules or is scandalous in nature---"Scandalous" is to be understood within the overall constitutional framework of the Rules and is confined to defects in form and presentation, not extending to merits or substance---A petition deficient in material particulars, or one failing to invoke any provision of the Constitution, law or Rules under which it is purportedly filed, may be treated as scandalous for the limited purpose of scrutiny by the Registrar, who may refuse to receive it unless defects in form and presentation are rectified---Rule does not vest in the Registrar any judicial power to adjudicate maintainability on ground that petition is frivolous; that question lies exclusively with the Court---Court may discourage outright non-maintainable, frivolous and vexatious petitions or appeals by imposing costs on unscrupulous petitioners or appellants under R. 3, Part A of O. XXX. Cited Cases: • Fazal Muhammad v. State PLD 1987 SC 273 (c) Writ jurisdiction---Administrative order of High Court---Alternative remedy---Objection that petitioner directly approached the Court without availing remedy available under law---Held, after the five-member judgment of the Supreme Court in Gul Taiz Khan Marwat, it is settled that no writ petition lies against an administrative order of a High Court; where the impugned action emanates from the administrative side of a High Court, ordinary constitutional remedy under writ jurisdiction stands excluded---Alternative remedy must be real, efficacious and legally permissible; where the law itself bars or does not recognize a remedy, the objection of non-availing of such remedy loses its force, and a party cannot be compelled to pursue a remedy unavailable in law or rendered ineffective by binding precedent---Invocation of jurisdiction of this Court, prima facie, appeared to be the only available legal course; objection was misconceived, untenable and liable to be overruled. Cited Cases: • Gul Taiz Khan Marwat v. Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar PLD 2021 SC 391 (d) Registrar's objection regarding defective notice---Notice issued to respondents not stating purpose for which the petition was filed---Held, objection (d) fell within administrative powers of the Registrar and was justified. Disposition: Miscellaneous appeal against the order of the Registrar dated 14.02.2026 partly allowed, without touching upon the question of maintainability of the petition under Art. 175E(3): objections (a), (b), (c) and (e) held to be examinable only by the Court through judicial determination, overruled, and the impugned return notice set aside; objection (d) sustained, the appellant to remove it to the satisfaction of the Registrar within one week, whereupon the office shall register the constitutional petition and fix it before an appropriate Bench on the judicial side. Approved for Reporting.