Summary: Background: Several writ petitions were filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, challenging the advertisement No. AJK-267/N/1/2023, dated 27.01.2023, for the posts of "Moalam-ul-Quran." The petitioners claimed that the advertisement was issued without lawful authority, was ambiguous, and intended to accommodate favorites by not following the rules regarding qualifications and distribution of posts. ----Issues: 1- Whether the advertisement for the posts of "Moalam-ul-Quran" was issued in accordance with the law and relevant rules. 2- Whether the qualifications and distribution of posts among union councils were properly specified in the advertisement. 3- Whether the posts of "Moalam-ul-Quran" should be upgraded from BPS-1 to a higher grade. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The court found that the advertisement was ambiguous, violated several judgments of the Superior Courts, and failed to specify necessary details about the distribution of posts among union councils. The court also noted the disparity in grades between "Moalam-ul-Quran" (BPS-1) and other teaching positions (BPS-11) and highlighted the importance and prestige of teaching the Quran, citing religious teachings. The court accepted the writ petitions, set aside the impugned advertisement, and directed the respondents to re-advertise the posts on a constituency basis after upgrading the posts and framing appropriate rules. ----Citations/Precedents: Molvi Abdul Latif Qari & 336 others Vs. Azad Govt. and others Hadith from Sahih Bukhari (Regarding the prestige of those who learn and teach the Quran)

Summary: Background:The Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) filed a complaint under the Prevention of Smuggling Act 1977, which was heard by a Special Judge, leading to an appeal in the Special Appellate Court. The appeal was allowed, but the ANF's subsequent challenge in the High Court was dismissed on the ground that a writ cannot be granted against a Judge of the High Court presiding over the Special Appellate Court as per Article 199(5) of the Constitution.----Issue(s):Whether the High Court can issue a writ under Article 199 of the Constitution against the decisions of the Special Appellate Court presided over by a High Court Judge.---Holding:The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, holding that the Special Appellate Court, though presided over by a High Court Judge, functions as a special forum created by statute and not as a constitutional court. Therefore, its decisions are amenable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.----Reasoning:The Supreme Court clarified that the Special Appellate Court is distinct from the High Court, established by the Prevention of Smuggling Act 1977, and not by the Constitution.A Judge presiding over the Special Appellate Court does so as a persona designata and not in their capacity as a High Court Judge, thus their actions in this role are subject to judicial review under Article 199.The Court distinguished between the judicial functions performed by a Judge under the Constitution and those carried out as a persona designata under a specific statute, with only the latter being subject to writ jurisdiction.---Judgment:The petitions were converted into appeals and allowed. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to treat the petitions filed by the ANF as pending and to decide them expeditiously.

Summary: Facts: The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and others filed a constitution petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenging show cause notices dated April 12, 2023, issued by the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) to two officials of SCBA. The petition was initially fixed for a preliminary hearing on May 5, 2023, where the counsel for the petitioners pointed out the subsequent de-seating notification, arguing it was illegal and without due process. The Court sought to understand the maintainability of the petition under Article 184(3) concerning public importance and enforcement of fundamental rights.---Issue: Whether the petition filed by SCBA under Article 184(3) of the Constitution challenging the show cause notices and subsequent de-seating by PBC is maintainable.---Holding: The Court did not directly address the maintainability but facilitated an amicable settlement between the parties.---Reasoning: The Court highlighted the importance of resolving disputes amicably, especially among esteemed legal bodies like the PBC and SCBA. Representatives from both sides were encouraged to find a middle ground, resulting in a consensual settlement. This approach avoided further litigation and maintained the dignity and harmony of the legal community.---Decision: The Constitution Petition was disposed of based on the amicable settlement reached between the SCBA and PBC, which included the withdrawal of show cause notices, de-seating notifications, and certain resolutions and letters that escalated the conflict. Both parties agreed to adhere to the settlement terms in letter and spirit.

Summary: Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, Section 13 of Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.(a) When a person steps into shoes of his formal landlord, an affirmative evidence of establishing or existence of relationship of landlord and tenant with that particular person would not invariably be required for proving existence of relationship of landlord and tenant.(b) If tenancy rights are inheritable then rights of landlords are also inheritable and if same are not claimed by a co-owner and not disputed by other co-owner, then claim of one co-owner would be sufficient against, even without express consent of other co-owner.

Summary: ''Discussion: (1) The doctrine of legitimate expectation is equated with fairness and equity. (2) Article 3 of the Constitution casts obligation upon the State to ensure the elimination of all forms of exploitation. (3) According to principle of promissory estoppel when one party by his words or conduct made to the other clear promise it cannot resile.'' --- Facts:NADRA advertised for Customer Service Executive (CSE) positions in Swat, for which the respondents applied, qualified the test and interview, but were appointed as Data Entry Operators (DEOs) on a daily wage basis for one-month job training.Despite qualifying for CSE posts, the respondents were not appointed as such, leading them to file writ petitions in the High Court, which were allowed, directing NADRA to appoint the respondents as CSEs.---Issue:Whether NADRA's action of appointing the respondents as DEOs instead of CSEs, for which they qualified, was justified and whether the High Court's direction to NADRA to appoint the respondents as CSEs was appropriate.---Holding:The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the High Court's decision to direct NADRA to appoint the respondents as CSEs.---Rationale:The Court found that NADRA's recruitment process for CSE positions led the respondents to have a legitimate expectation of being appointed as CSEs upon qualifying for the position.The appointment of the respondents as DEOs instead of CSEs was seen as a violation of the recruitment process's terms and conditions.The doctrine of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel supported the respondents' case, as they acted on NADRA's promise by participating in the recruitment process and qualifying for the CSE positions.The Supreme Court differentiated this case from previous rulings where contractual employees' writ petitions were dismissed, noting that the respondents were not seeking regularization of contractual employment but appointment to the positions for which they had applied and qualified.---Decision:The Supreme Court found no irregularity in the High Court's judgment directing NADRA to appoint the respondents as CSEs, affirming that the respondents were entitled to such appointments based on the recruitment process and their legitimate expectations.

Summary: Background: A writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the orders passed by the FCR Tribunal, which dismissed the revision petition filed against the decisions of the APA/ADM Upper Kurram and the Commissioner FCR. The petitioners sought to have the impugned orders set aside on the grounds of being illegal, without jurisdiction, and violating relevant laws, rules, and superior court judgments. Initially, the High Court dismissed the writ petition due to lack of jurisdiction under Article 247 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court of Pakistan set aside the High Court's decision and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision considering the effect of the 25th and 26th Constitutional Amendments. ----Issues: 1- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter after the 25th and 26th Constitutional Amendments. 2- Whether the orders of the FCR Tribunal dismissing the petitioners' revision petition were lawful and within jurisdiction. 3- Whether the FCR Tribunal's decisions violated relevant laws, rules, and superior court judgments. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court, upon remand from the Supreme Court, examined the jurisdiction issue in light of the 25th Constitutional Amendment, which omitted Article 247, thus extending the jurisdiction of the High Court to erstwhile FATA areas. The High Court found that the petitioners had already availed their final remedy before the FCR Tribunal and that the dispute had been adequately addressed by the erstwhile FATA hierarchy. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the FCR Tribunal's decisions were lawful and within its jurisdiction, and that there was no violation of relevant laws, rules, or superior court judgments. ----Citations/Precedents: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 199 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 246 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 247 25th Constitutional Amendment (25th Amendment Act, 2018) "Mst. Rohaifa through her sons and another Vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defense and 2 others" (PLD 2014)

Summary: Background: The petitioners challenged the decision made by the Member Board of Revenue of Azad Jammu & Kashmir on April 28, 2014. This decision reversed an earlier decision made on November 22, 2008. The petitioners argued that the reversal was conducted under the guise of review powers without following the procedure outlined in Section 8 of the AJ&K Board of Revenue Act, 1993. They contended that the Member Board of Revenue had exceeded their jurisdiction by not adhering to the established legal process for reviews, which requires new evidence or a clear error in the original decision. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Member Board of Revenue acted within their jurisdiction by reversing their own previous decision. 2- Whether the proper procedure for a review, as stipulated in Section 8 of the AJ&K Board of Revenue Act, 1993, was followed. 3- Whether the petitioners were denied a fair hearing in the previous partition proceedings. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the Member Board of Revenue acted outside their jurisdiction and failed to adhere to the proper review procedures. The court found that the impugned decision was illegal and capricious, as it did not meet the limited scope for review, which includes new material or a deviation from law. The original decision on November 22, 2008, was deemed comprehensive and legally sound, having remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for a de-novo investigation and hearing. The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing were violated since the petitioners and other co-sharers were not given notice or an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned decision of April 28, 2014, and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner Dadyal, directing a resolution within three months with proper hearings for all concerned parties. The court declared the impugned decision of the Member Board of Revenue dated April 28, 2014, as illegal and without jurisdiction. The case was remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner Dadyal with instructions to expedite the matter within three months, ensuring all parties involved are given a fair hearing. -----Citations/Precedents: AJ&K Board of Revenue Act, 1993, Section 8 Defines the review process and limitations for the Board of Revenue. 2008 SCMR 322 Establishes that the High Court can intervene in the decisions of special tribunals if they exceed their jurisdiction or act without jurisdiction. 2013 SCMR 1595 Clarifies the scope of High Court's constitutional jurisdiction to ensure decisions are made in accordance with the law and proper procedures.

Summary: Constitution--Jurisdiction of High Court in matters relating to terms and conditions of civilservant---- petitioner is a civil servant and serving as Drawing Master in the EducationDepartment and, therefore, the question of seniority agitated before us is covered by the termsand conditions of service, for which the relevant tribunal has already been established and thejurisdiction of this Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution--constitutional petitionbeing meritless stands dismissed..

Summary: (a) A demand for grant not approved by the Provincial Cabinet and introduction in pursuance thereof in Provincial Assembly, cannot be passed by Provincial Assembly. Assembly cannot generate any such demand for grant, itself.(b) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees of Transport Department (Regularization of Services) Act 2022 as well as the subsequent Amendment Act were declared to be invalid laws not being passed in conformity with Article 115, 120 and Article 240 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973.(c) When a statue is not found to be a valid law, then the principle of reading down cannot be resorted to, rather such a statute has to be declared invalid, ultra vires being in conflict with provisions of the Constitution.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, challenging the order dated June 21, 2018, issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Mirpur. The petitioner had been allotted shop No.9 and had invested in its renovation. Due to financial losses, the petitioner went abroad for a year and temporarily sublet the shop to the respondent. Upon return, the petitioner found the subletting arrangement violated the terms of the original agreement, leading to legal disputes. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner violated the terms of the agreement by subletting the shop without permission. 2- Whether the SSP's order canceling the shop allotment was lawful. 3- Whether the petitioner was entitled to retain possession of the shop. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court held that the petitioner had indeed violated the terms of the agreement by subletting the shop without prior permission. The court emphasized that under Condition No.4 of the agreement, the petitioner was neither authorized to make alterations to the shop nor sublet it. The petitioner's admission of subletting the shop corroborated this violation. The court further reasoned that it could not sit as an appellate court to review the factual determinations made by the lower tribunals, especially when the petitioner’s conduct was not in good faith. The High Court’s role in extraordinary jurisdiction does not extend to protecting individuals who gain benefits through manipulation or violations of the law. Given the petitioner's failure to demonstrate any legal violation by the respondents and the clear terms of the agreement, the petition was dismissed. The court reiterated that equitable relief requires the claimant to come with clean hands, which the petitioner failed to do. The petition was dismissed, and the order of the SSP Mirpur dated June 21, 2018, was upheld. The petitioner’s subletting of the shop without permission was deemed sufficient ground for the cancellation of the shop allotment. The High Court found no merit in the petition and no costs were awarded. ----Citations/Precedents: 2004 MLD 69 Emphasizes that the High Court cannot substitute findings of fact by lower courts and must ensure that the claimant seeks equitable relief with clean hands. PLD 2004 Lah. 9 Reinforces the principle that extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court should not be invoked to protect gains obtained through manipulation or bad faith actions.