Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: Director Special Assignments at Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd (PTVC), challenged the appointment of Muhammad Malick as Managing Director (MD) of PTVC. Kamal argued that the appointment process was manipulated to favor Malick by lowering the qualifications and altering terms in the advertisement. He claimed that this was in violation of the Supreme Court's guidelines in Khawaja Asif vs. Federation of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 1205) and the Islamabad High Court's judgment in W.P No. 1874/2013. Kamal also contended that Malick was a defaulter of PTVC and had a conflict of interest due to his private production companies. ----Issues: 1- Whether the writ petition is maintainable. -----2- Whether the appointment process for MD PTVC was conducted transparently and in accordance with the law. -----3- Whether the appointment of Muhammad Malick as MD PTVC was in violation of the Supreme Court's guidelines and the Islamabad High Court's directions. -----4- Whether Malick had a conflict of interest and was a defaulter of PTVC. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Maintainability of Petition: The court found the writ petition maintainable, rejecting the respondents' objections. The court held that the alternate remedy available to the petitioner was neither efficacious nor adequate, as the process of selection adopted by FCHPSO itself was under challenge. --Appointment Process: The court held that the appointment process was manipulated to favor Muhammad Malick. The educational qualifications and other criteria were lowered and altered without plausible justification. The court found that the selection process lacked transparency, fairness, and adherence to merit. --Violation of Guidelines: The court concluded that the appointment violated the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Khawaja Asif's case. The FCHPSO's recommendation of two names to the Prime Minister was binding, and the Prime Minister's discretion to select any name was not exercised in a structured and reasonable manner. --Conflict of Interest and Default: The court found that Malick had a conflict of interest due to his private production companies and had made a false statement about not having any outstanding liabilities with PTVC. The court noted that the clearance certificate for Malick's company was issued after his appointment, confirming he was a defaulter at the time of his interview. The court declared the appointment of Muhammad Malick as MD PTVC non-transparent, non-competitive, and illegal. The notification of his appointment was set aside, and Malick was directed to cease being MD PTVC immediately. The FCHPSO was instructed to reinitiate the competitive process for appointing a new MD PTVC in line with the Supreme Court's guidelines and the court's observations. -----Citations/Precedents: Khawaja Muhammad Asif vs. Federation of Pakistan & others, 2013 SCMR 1205 Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others, PLD 2013 SC 195 Amanullah Khan Vs. Federal Government of Pakistan, 1990 SCMR 1092 Sheikh Zahid Hospital through Chairman & Dean & another Vs. Dr. Muhammad Saeed & others, 2012 SCMR 455 Muhammad Yasin Vs. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2012 SC 132 Rehmat Ullah alias Raja vs. Home Secretary Punjab and others, 2004 SCMR 1861 Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others, (2004) 3 SCC 363 Dr. B. Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2005) 1 SCC 590 Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, (2005) 5 SCC 136 Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Law, Islamabad & others, PLD 2013 SC 413

Summary: S.42 SRA:Detection bill issued without observing provision 26(6)Electricity Act,is without lawful authority

Summary: S.13 Pre-emption Act:Requirements of talabs(talb-e- ishhad)

Summary: S.5 KP S.J.S.T Act:Compulsory retirement,delay in recording adverse remarks in ACRs-its effects

Summary: Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908)-------Ss. 3 & 4---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13 (e)---Criminal Procedure Code (Vof 1898), S.103---Possessing handgrenade and unlicensed firearms---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery proceedings---Statements of recovery witnesses---Procedure---Accused was convictedand sentenced for imprisonment for keeping in his possession one unlicensed rifle .303 bore, oneTT pistol .22 bore, a bandoleer containing 15 live cartridges and one handgrenade---Validity---Serious doubts existed regarding preparation of recovery itself---In case of on-spot recovery,statements of recovery witnesses had to be recorded soon thereafter at the spot but witness ofrecovery admitted that his statement was recorded in police station and he was not present at thetime of recovery---Entire proceedings were doubtful as raid was conducted on the basis of secretinformation and no independent respectable person of that locality was joined in recoveryproceedings---Prosecution not only failed to prove alleged recovery of explosive material andarms and ammunitions from the possession of accused but also failed to prove the case withoutany shadow of doubt---High Court set aside conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court andacquitted accused of the charge---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Summary: It is a settled principle of law that conviction can only be based upon unimpeachable evidence and if any doubt arises in the prosecution story, the benefit of the same should be gone to the accused. No doubt, Muhammad Sharif was murdered but the court is followed by the evidence on the record and the accused/respondents could not be convicted on the basis of unreliable and untrustworthy evidence of the eye witnesses running counter to medical evidence. Criminal Appeal dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: PLJ 2014 Lahore 61 (DB) [Multan Bench Multan] Present Amin - ud - Din Khan and Abid Aziz Sheikh JJ MUHAMMAD RAMZAN - - Appellant versus HABIB AHMAD and 19 others - - Respondents ICA No 228 of 2010 in WP No 21 of 2009 heard on 3092013 Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 (XII of 1972) - - - - - - S 3 - - Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Art 199 - - Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 S 3 - - Intra Court Appeala gainst dismissal of writ petition - - No right of appeal against dismissal of complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act - - Constitutional jurisdiction as well as Appellate Jurisdiction cannot be exercised in routine as an appeal - - Case of encroachment or demarcation - - Abadi Deh and Ehata Jaat - - Validity - - Documentary evidence produced by appellant does not show that Ehata was in existence over Khasra - - Even witnesses produced by appellant were not specific about existence of ehata in - question at land exclusively owned by appellant - - No allegation against respondents that they belong to Qabza Group - - Legislature had intentionally not provided right of appeal against dismissal of complaint by trial Court in complaint filed under Illegal Dispossession Act therefore constitutional jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction by High Court cannot be exercised in a routine - - If it is liberally exercised it will circumvent the intention of legislature which is not permissible under law - - No case for interference was made out - - ICA was dismissed [Pp 63 64] A B C Mr Abdul Rashid Sheikh Advocate for Appellant Malik Muhammad Naeem Iqbal Advocate and Mr Zafarullah Khan Khakwani AAG for RespondentsJudgement Result:ICA dismissed