Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: S.115 CPC:Co-sharer in joint property cannot be dispossessed, nor co-sharer change the nature of joint property.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act (XVII of 1996): ---Ss. 4(l), 5, 8(2), 20 & 21--- Issuance of Long Distance International (LDI) license---Scope of regulatory authority and procedural compliance---Petitioner challenged the grant of an LDI license to Respondent No.4, alleging that the license was issued without adherence to policy directives, public notice, or open auction, thereby violating statutory provisions, directives, and principles of transparency. ---Held, under the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) has the exclusive authority to grant licenses for telecommunication services. The 2003 Deregulation Policy, though subject to review after five years, remained effective as it was not formally rescinded. PTA acted within its statutory authority, and no legal requirement existed for conducting an open auction for LDI licenses. ---Held further, the petitioner's claims of mala fide, discrimination, and lack of transparency were unsubstantiated. All procedural and codal formalities were duly observed in granting the LDI license to Respondent No.4. The petitioner, already holding an LDI license, failed to establish itself as an affected or interested party, rendering the petition devoid of merit. (b) Constitutional Jurisdiction: ---Art. 199--- Maintainability of writ petition---Scope of judicial review---Petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199, seeking cancellation of the LDI license granted to Respondent No.4. ---Held, constitutional jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory remedies or a forum for speculative claims. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of constitutional rights or statutory provisions warranting judicial interference. The court does not intervene in the domain of a regulatory authority unless there is evidence of mala fide, lack of jurisdiction, or procedural impropriety. In this case, no exceptional circumstances were established. (c) Transparency and Procedural Compliance: Regulatory decisions---Burden of proof in allegations of mala fide or favoritism---Petitioner alleged favoritism in the grant of the LDI license, citing arbitrary actions and non-compliance with policy directives. ---Held, mere allegations without substantive evidence are insufficient to challenge the actions of a regulatory authority. The grant of the LDI license to Respondent No.4 was found to be lawful, transparent, and in compliance with applicable policies and regulations. ----Disposition: Writ Petitions Nos. 904 and 1204 of 2014 were dismissed with no order as to costs. The court found no merit in the petitions, affirming that the issuance of the LDI license adhered to legal and procedural requirements.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.