Summary: Dismissed --- The appellant, representing the case, argued that his rights, particularly the right to operate buses from a designated area, were being compromised by the respondent's actions, which could result in a monopoly by one transport company. The respondent's counsel objected to the maintainability of the Intra Court Appeal, citing the availability of appeal procedures as per Rule 267 of the Punjab Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969, and Section 190 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. These sections provide for an appeal process against orders affecting the establishment of stands or loading areas. The court considered these arguments and provisions, highlighting that the law already provided for an appeal process against such orders. Consequently, the Intra Court Appeal was dismissed on grounds of its non-maintainability as the law provided other avenues for appeal against the orders in question.

Summary: The main issue revolved around Section 24 of the Act, which deals with the deposit of rent by tenants. The petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Act, which mandates the deposit of rent by the tenant within a specified time. The Rent Tribunal, however, did not pass an order regarding the deposit of rent when granting leave to contest, leading to the petitioner's grievance. The petitioner argued that Section 24 of the Act does not distinguish between cases where the landlord-tenant relationship is disputed or not, and it mandates the deposit of rent once leave to contest is granted. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument, emphasizing that Section 24 of the Act imposes an obligation on the Rent Tribunal to order the deposit of rent when leave to contest is granted. The court stated that this obligation exists regardless of whether the relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed. The court noted that the Act introduced significant changes in landlord-tenant relationships, including the requirement for written and registered tenancy agreements. It emphasized the importance of enforcing these provisions and discouraging unscrupulous tenant defenses. The court referred to a recent Supreme Court judgment to support its interpretation of the Act's intent and the mandatory nature of Section 24. It also highlighted that an agreement to sell does not confer any rights to the tenant until possession is handed over to the landlord. In conclusion, the court set aside the orders issued by the Rent Tribunal and directed it to determine the interim rent in accordance with Section 24 of the Act before proceeding with the merits of the ejectment petition.

Summary: The petitioner applied for the position of Junior Clerk BPS-7 and secured 89 marks, placing him at Serial No. 2 in the merit list. However, due to the non-joining of the candidates who stood first and second, the petitioner, initially shown at Serial No. 2, was later placed at Serial No. 3 in the revised merit list.The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction from the court to issue his appointment letter as Junior Clerk. The petitioner claimed that his marks were intentionally changed from 19 to 9 by the respondents to alter his position in the merit list. The respondents contended that the petitioner's marks were erroneously shown as 19, and he had actually scored 9 marks in the interview, placing him at Serial No. 3 in the revised merit list.After hearing both parties and considering the relevant policies and notifications, the judge cited various case laws, including instances where selected candidates did not join the service and held that the next candidates on the merit list should be considered for the vacant posts. The judge concluded that the petitioner, being next in line due to the failure of the initial candidates to join, should have been considered for the post.The judge referred to constitutional provisions that protect the rights of citizens and ensure fair treatment according to the law. Additionally, the judge dismissed arguments of acquiescence and the notion that the seat had been filled already, asserting that the department's failure to appoint the petitioner earlier was not aligned with fair recruitment practices.Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner.

Summary: The case revolves around the petitioner's application for the post of Educator (ESE Science-Math) on a contract basis in the District Multan. The petitioner applied for the position and underwent the National Testing Service (NTS) test, securing 53 marks. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared before the Departmental Selection Committee for an interview and was placed at Serial No. 81 in the tentative list of candidates for the post.However, later, the petitioner was deemed ineligible for the post due to lacking the required qualifications. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to be included in the final list of eligible candidates for the said post.The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was qualified for the post and fulfilled all necessary requirements. They contended that the exclusion of the petitioner's name from the final merit list was a violation of the equality clause as per Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan.Conversely, the respondents argued that the petitioner lacked the basic qualification for the post of ESE (Science Math) as per the Recruitment Policy of Educators, 2014. It was stated that the petitioner did not possess the required F.Sc. qualification, holding a Diploma of Associate Engineer instead.The judge noted that the petitioner himself admitted to not possessing the necessary qualifications. A referenced court case outlined the requirement for candidates to have studied Physics, Chemistry, Biology, or Mathematics up to F.Sc. level. The judge highlighted that the petitioner's educational background did not align with the detailed and extensive knowledge of these subjects required for the role of an elementary school educator.The judgment held that the court cannot replace the opinion of a competent Departmental Authority unless there is patent illegality or manifest jurisdictional error. It concluded that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria and therefore could not establish any malice on the part of the Departmental Authority.As a result, the writ petition was dismissed by the judge, Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi. The decision was approved for reporting.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, incorporated entities under the Companies Ordinance 1984, challenged the issuance of show cause notices under Sections 122(9) and 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. These notices pertained to alleged liabilities under the Workers Welfare Fund (WWF) and were based on amendments made to the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance of 1971 through the Finance Acts of 2006 and 2008. The petitioners argued that these amendments were unconstitutional. They sought the court’s intervention to declare these amendments ultra vires under Article 199 of the Constitution, claiming that the issue had already been adjudicated in conflicting judgments by three High Courts in Pakistan. -----Issues: 1- Is a writ petition under Article 199 maintainable in challenging show cause notices, especially when the notices are based on amendments alleged to be unconstitutional? -----2- Can show cause notices be treated as adverse orders to make the petitioners “aggrieved parties” under Article 199? -----3- Should the court adjudicate the constitutionality of the amendments or defer to the statutory tax adjudication process? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petitions, concluding that: --Maintainability of Petition: Show cause notices are not considered adverse orders, and the petitioners are not “aggrieved parties” under Article 199 of the Constitution simply due to receipt of a show cause notice. Generally, constitutional petitions against such notices are premature, as the taxpayer has an adequate remedy through the statutory tax adjudication process. --Exceptions to the Rule: A constitutional petition may be maintainable against a show cause notice only if it was issued by an unauthorized person or issued for malafide reasons. Here, neither exception applied, and the court found no evidence of unauthorized action or malafides. --Proceeding with Adjudication: The conflicting judgments from the Sindh, Lahore, and Peshawar High Courts on the vires of the WWF amendments had not been suspended and would provide necessary guidance to the tax adjudication authorities. The court emphasized the importance of upholding the legislative intent behind the Income Tax Ordinance and Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance and allowing statutory forums to complete their adjudication. The court concluded that a constitutional intervention was unwarranted and deferred to the statutory tax forums. The petitions were dismissed, with instructions for the tax authorities to provide fair hearings and consider the precedents from the High Courts. -----Citations/Precedents: The Burmah Oil Co. vs. The Trustees of the Port of Chittagong [PLD 1962 S.C. 113] Messrs Usmania Glass Sheet Factory vs. Sales Tax Officer [PLD 1971 S.C. 205] Federation of Pakistan vs. Aitzaz Ahsan [PLD 1989 SC 61] Federation of Pakistan and another vs. M/s Durrani Ceramics and others Sindh High Court Bar Association vs. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2009 SC 789] Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hamdard Dawakhana [PLD 1992 SC 847] Tariq Transport Co. vs. Sargodha Bhera Bus Service [PLD 1958 SC 437] Muhammad Hussain Kazi vs. Govt. of Punjab [PLD 1983 SC 187]

Summary: S.324,34,109 PPCStrong & exceptional grounds required for bail cancellation (BCA dismissed)

Summary: S.302 PPCOverwhelming evidence (Appeal dismissed)

Summary: Borrowing money from colleagues does not amount to misconduct