Summary: Background: The petitioner, is an employee of the Health Department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and currently serves as the District Health Officer (DHO) in Dera Ismail Khan (DIK). The department proposed his transfer from this position, and during the general elections, no postings or transfers could be made without a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Provincial Election Commissioner. The petitioner challenged the proposed transfer, alleging it was politically motivated and premature. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petition is maintainable given the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution. 2- Whether the proposed transfer is lawful and justified. 3- Whether the petitioner's allegations of political victimization and mala fide are valid. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The petition was dismissed. ---Maintainability: The court addressed a preliminary objection raised by the Additional Advocate General (Addl. AG), citing Article 212 of the Constitution, which restricts civil servants from approaching the High Court regarding matters related to their terms and conditions of service. Instead, these matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The court referred to Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which states that a civil servant can be transferred anywhere within or outside the province. The law provides the Service Tribunal as the appropriate forum for civil servants to address grievances related to transfers, including allegations of mala fide. ---Transfer Proposal: The petitioner argued that the proposed transfer was politically motivated and premature. The court noted that civil servants have no vested right to hold a particular post or serve in a specific location. The competent authority has the discretion to transfer civil servants as needed for administrative reasons. The issuance of the NOC further rendered the petition infructuous. ---Allegations of Mala Fide: The court recognized that allegations of political victimization and mala fide could be grounds for challenging a transfer order. However, such matters must be addressed before the Service Tribunal, not the High Court, due to the constitutional and legal framework governing civil servants' terms and conditions of service. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable under Article 212 of the Constitution, and the petitioner was directed to seek remedy through the Service Tribunal. ----Citations/Precedents: Peer Muhammad vs. Government of Balochistan (2007 SCMR 54) Established that the posting and transfer of government servants fall within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and should be addressed by the Service Tribunal, not the High Court. Ali Azhar Khan Baloch vs. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456) Reiterated that Article 212 of the Constitution ousts the jurisdiction of High Courts and civil courts in matters related to the terms and conditions of civil servants, conferring exclusive jurisdiction to Service Tribunals.

Summary: Wahab, a resident of Sher Khana, Palai, Tehsil Batkhela, District Malakand, applied for a Free Education Scholarship Programme for students from Class 6 to Class 12 and scored the highest in his district. An issue arose regarding his date of birth in the Admission and Withdrawal Register, leading to his initial rejection from the scholarship programme.---Issue:The primary issue was the authenticity of Wahab's date of birth, which was challenged due to alleged alterations in the Admission and Withdrawal Register to meet the scholarship programme's age criteria.---Decision:The Supreme Court, after reviewing the documentary evidence provided by the Headmaster of Government Primary School, Sher Khana, verified Wahab's date of birth as 14.10.2009. The Court found no irregularity in the High Court's judgment and dismissed the civil petition, refusing leave to appeal.---Reasoning:The Court concluded that the High Court was justified in its decision, as the question of Wahab's date of birth was resolved through documentary evidence without the need for elaborate inquiry or evidence. The production and verification of documents by the school's Headmaster were deemed sufficient to resolve the issue, and the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution was appropriately exercised.---Judgment:The civil petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, upholding the High Court's directions to adjust Shah Faisal Wahab in the upcoming admissions based on the test he had already cleared.''The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is intended to provide an expeditious remedy in a case where the illegality of an impugned action can be established without any elaborate enquiry or recording of evidence.''

Summary: Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan--Article 199-- The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Appointment, Deputation, Posting and Transfer of Teachers, Lecturers, Instructors and Doctors) Regulatory Act of 2011--Section 3--Appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher (PST)--- The relevant provision prescribed that the candidates shall be the permanent resident of the union council mentioned in the CNIC and domicile and who also qualify on merit. Petitioner obtained new CNIC with changed permanent address much later than the cut-off date whereas permanent resident certificate from secretary union council and chairman village council were issued to him much later--Petitioner's earlier CNIC issued to him shows his permanent address of Mohallah Khwajgan, Ghari Habibullah while the PST post were advertised for union council tachi Mang, post office Chattar Pain--Petition, therefore was not,eligible for appointment as PST being not the permanent resident of union council Lachi Mang, Chattar Plain--His petition was, therefore, dismissed.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199(1)(b)(ii)---Writ of quo warranto---Public office---Support-posts vs. substantive public offices--- A writ of quo warranto cannot be issued against subordinate or support-posts that are not created directly by a statute but are instead established under subordinate legislation, such as service regulations. The Benazir Income Support Programme Act, 2010 creates public offices limited to the Board Members, Chairperson, Secretary, Chief Patron, and Executive Patron. Posts such as 'Director Payments' and 'Director Waseela-e-Taleem' are administrative designations established under service regulations and do not qualify as substantive public offices for the purposes of quo warranto. The Court clarified that such posts are "support-posts" and not substantive offices created by the Act. Cited Cases: Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills (PLD 1975 SC 244) Chaudhry Asghar Ali v. Shahid Nauman Afzal Amjad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan Sohail Baig Noori v. High Court of Sindh (b) Administrative Law--- ----Statutory vs. non-statutory posts---Scope of writ jurisdiction--- Subordinate positions, created through subordinate legislation or regulations for operational or support purposes, cannot be equated with substantive public offices established directly by statute. Directors serving under the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) fall under the category of subordinate support-posts. Such posts, despite their administrative or managerial significance, are not amenable to a writ of quo warranto. (c) Doctrine of quo warranto--- ----Tests for determining public office--- The Court applied the Henry Farran test, reaffirmed in Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills, which states that a public office must: Be created directly by a statute or the Constitution. Be substantive in nature and not merely a role subordinate or ancillary to a statutory office. The posts of 'Director Payments' and 'Director Waseela-e-Taleem' do not meet these criteria and are therefore not public offices for the purposes of quo warranto. (d) Writ jurisdiction--- ----Malafide intention---Frivolous litigation---Imposition of costs--- The petitioner, a former employee of BISP with a history of litigation against one of the respondents, filed the petition after a five-year delay, suggesting an ulterior motive. The petition was deemed frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the Court's jurisdiction. The petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the Legal Aid and Justice Authority Fund within 30 days. (e) Statutory Interpretation--- ----Absurdity rule--- The Court emphasized that statutory provisions must be interpreted to avoid absurd results. Interpreting Section 10 of the BISP Act, 2010 to imply that administrative staff hold public office would lead to an illogical outcome where non-substantive roles could claim the status of statutory public offices. Key Legal Principles: Writ of quo warranto applies only to substantive public offices created directly by statute or the Constitution. Administrative and managerial positions created under service regulations are subordinate roles and not public offices. Frivolous petitions filed with malafide intent warrant imposition of costs. Disposition: Writ Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000, to be deposited in the Legal Aid and Justice Authority Fund within 30 days. Failure to comply would result in further court orders.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 199(1)(b)(ii)—Writ of quo warranto—Maintainability—Requirement of bona fides—The petitioner challenged the appointments of certain respondents within the Special Technology Zones Authority (STZA), alleging non-transparency and lack of merit. The court held that a writ of quo warranto under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) is not issued as a matter of course and must be supported by bona fide intent and public interest. A petitioner motivated by collateral purposes or personal vendettas cannot avail the constitutional remedy of quo warranto. (b) Special Technology Zones Authority Act, 2021 ----Appointments within the STZA—Authority of the Prime Minister—The court noted that the Prime Minister has authority under Section 7(2) of the STZA Act to appoint the Chairperson of the Authority. Subsequent appointments were made by the STZA in accordance with its enabling statute. No conclusive finding on the merits of the appointments was made as the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds. (c) Administrative law—Public office ----Definition of public office—Court reiterated that only individuals holding statutory positions or exercising independent functions in connection with state affairs qualify as public office holders for the purposes of a quo warranto petition. Allegations against individuals not holding such positions cannot be addressed through this remedy. (d) Lack of bona fides ----Collateral purposes and malice—Court emphasized that petitions filed with ulterior motives, including as proxies for private interests, undermine the rule of law and abuse judicial processes. In this case, the petitioner was found to be acting on behalf of a private media company (BOL) to further its corporate interests and harass respondents. Such conduct disqualified the petitioner from seeking constitutional relief. (e) Costs in litigation ----Award of litigation costs—The court awarded costs amounting to PKR 1,100,500 against the petitioner to be paid to the respondent organization for legal fees and expenses. Costs were deemed necessary to deter frivolous and malicious litigation. Disposition: The petition was dismissed as not maintainable due to lack of bona fides. Costs amounting to PKR 1,100,500 were imposed on the petitioner, to be paid within 30 days, with a compliance certificate to be filed by the petitioner’s counsel. ---- Cited Cases: Jawad Ahmad Mir v. Prof. Dr. Imtiaz Ali Khan (2023 SCMR 162). Hafiz Hamdullah v. Saifullah Khan (PLD 2007 SC 52). Gadoon Textile Mills v. WAPDA (1997 SCMR 641). Muhammad Hanif Abbasi v. Jahangir Khan Tareen (PLD 2018 SC 114). Ayaz Ahmed Khan v. Federation of Pakistan (2021 PLC (C.S.) 1394). Ghulam Shabbir v. Muhammad Munir Abbasi (PLD 2011 SC 516).

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199; doctrine of exhaustion of remedies Writ jurisdiction—Alternative, adequate and efficacious remedies—Petition seeking demolition of alleged illegal construction held not maintainable where the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979 provides specific mechanisms and fora for redress; High Court’s writ is not to be used as a first resort when statutory remedies exist. Cited Cases: • Mian Azam Waheed and others v. The Collector of Customs, Karachi, 2023 SCMR 1247 (b) Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979—Demolition and sealing powers ----Ss. 6(1) & 7-A Where construction is raised without an approved plan or in deviation from an approved plan, SBCA may, without prejudice to other actions, order demolition at the builder’s/owner’s cost, seal the premises, eject occupants, and otherwise enforce compliance—These powers operate independently of penal provisions. (c) Penal consequences and compounding ----S. 19(1) & (1-A) Contravention of the Ordinance is punishable with imprisonment/fine; continuing offences attract per-day fines—SBCA (or authorized person) may compound offences on prescribed terms—Penal track is distinct from administrative demolition/sealing under S. 7-A. (d) Special Courts and cognizance ----Ss. 18-A & 18-D; S. 19(2) Special Courts established under S. 18-A try offences under the Ordinance—Cognizance arises on SBCA’s complaint and a police report—Petitioners ought to pursue the statutory route before SBCA and, where appropriate, the Special Courts. (e) Factual matrix—Approved plan and removal of violations ----SBCA comments; renewal and enforcement Record reflected approval/renewal of a residential plan; SBCA reported demolition of columns/shuttering encroaching compulsory open space and affirmed that any future violation would be removed—Petitioners failed to substantiate legal/procedural illegality warranting writ intervention. (f) Administrative direction to Government of Sindh ----Implementation timeline Law Secretary directed to ensure establishment/notification of competent “Special Courts” district-wise under the Sindh Building Control Authority (Amendment) Act, 2013, or to notify Civil/District Courts to function as Special Courts with concurrence of the Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court—Compliance mandated within two months, with report to the Court. (g) Disposition --- Constitutional petition held not maintainable in view of adequate statutory remedies under the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979; petition dismissed along with pending applications; reasons issued for short order dated 07.05.2024.

Summary: Background: The Islamabad Electric Supply Company (IESCO) filed a writ petition against M/s National Construction Company Limited and other respondents. The specific grievances or issues at the heart of the petition are not detailed in the provided order sheet. ----Issues: The immediate issue in the proceedings is the repeated failure of the petitioner's counsel to appear and argue the case, despite multiple warnings from the court. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court reviewed the order sheet, noting multiple warnings given to the petitioner's counsel about the necessity to argue the case. A specific order dated 23.01.2023 indicated that if the counsel did not argue the case, it would be decided based on the available record. The court granted an absolute last opportunity for the petitioner's counsel to appear and argue the case. The case was adjourned and re-listed for 03.05.2023.

Summary: The petitioner, Irfan Saleem, raises concerns about the deteriorating condition of the site being used as a garbage bin. The Evacuee Trust Property Board also expresses grievances over notifications declaring Panj Teerath as an important/protected antiquity. The court has been dealing with the matter and issued several directions, instructing the Evacuee Trust Property counsel to appear with administrators and provide information on how permission was granted for the park. Subsequent orders involve determining visitor access to the site and appointing a Focal Person to assess the situation. The Focal Person, Mr. Ali Gohar Durrani, reports the temple's poor condition, lack of access, and misuse for garbage dumping. The court directs the removal of garbage and submission of a report with supporting photographs. Despite the intention to hand over the property to the Archeology Department for restoration, it is revealed that the property, where houses were constructed, belongs to the Evacuee Trust Property Board. The Board is criticized for renting out the property to tenants who illegally occupied it, raising concerns about mismanagement. The court expressed a desire to have a personal inquiry into the Board's actions due to the apparent negligence in handling government property.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking directions to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), the Chief Secretary of Punjab, and the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, to conduct transparent elections in accordance with Articles 218(3) and 220 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The petitioner argued that the authorities had failed to implement constitutional provisions and sought enforcement of the Supreme Court’s order regarding the timely conduct of elections in the Province of Punjab. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether the Election Commission of Pakistan and other relevant authorities were failing in their duty to conduct fair and transparent elections as per Articles 218(3) and 220 of the Constitution. ----- 2) Whether the apprehensions regarding the inability to conduct elections in a fair manner warranted judicial intervention at this stage. ----- Holding/Reasoning: Constitutional Provisions for Elections: The court reproduced Articles 218(3) and 220 of the Constitution, which mandate that the ECP is responsible for organizing and conducting elections honestly, fairly, and in accordance with the law, while all executive authorities in the provinces must assist the ECP in fulfilling these duties. ----- Supreme Court’s Direction: The court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Suo Motu Case No. 1 of 2023, which directed the ECP to hold elections within the constitutional timeframe. The Supreme Court’s judgment, dated 01.03.2023, clarified the roles of the Governor and President in appointing election dates for the dissolution of provincial assemblies and instructed the ECP to ensure elections were held in a timely manner. ----- Election Schedule Issued: The court noted that in compliance with the Supreme Court's order, the ECP had already issued an election schedule, with polling set for 30.04.2023. The ECP was actively proceeding with the election process, and no substantial evidence was presented to show that the elections would not be held fairly or that the authorities were failing in their duties. ----- Apprehensions without Evidence: The court found that the petitioner’s concerns were based on apprehensions without substantial evidence. The petitioner referred to news reports and certain incidents, but no material was provided to prove that the ECP was unable to perform its duties or that the elections would not be conducted in a transparent manner. The court emphasized that the ECP had not raised any objections regarding the conduct of elections, and no specific failures by the authorities were identified. ----- Premature Petition: Since the petition was based on unfounded apprehensions rather than concrete evidence, the court held that it was premature and dismissed it accordingly. ----- Outcome: The petition was dismissed as being premature and based on mere apprehensions, without any substantial evidence to support the claims that the elections would not be conducted fairly. ----- Citations/Precedents: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Articles 218(3) and 220 Suo Motu Case No. 1 of 2023, Supreme Court of Pakistan ----- Quote: ''Nothing substantial is presently available on the record to establish the claim of the petitioner that the Inspector General of Police, Punjab and the Chief Secretary of Province of Punjab were reluctant to holding the election within the stipulated time as directed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Election Commission of Pakistan had failed to implement Articles 218 and 220 of the Constitution and was not proceeding with the matter of conduct of elections in fair manner as election schedule has been issued and the Election Commission of Pakistan was proceeding with the matter in accordance with the schedule, therefore, the constitution petition being pre-mature and based on apprehensions only was accordingly dismissed.''

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed an application under Section 135 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, before the Assistant Commissioner of Tehsil Gagra, District Buner, seeking the partition of certain land situated in the revenue estate of Shalbandai. The parties involved are siblings. The respondents contested the application, arguing that a private partition had already occurred. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the application on 09/02/2018. This decision was upheld by the Additional Deputy Commissioner on 17/04/2018 and the Additional Commissioner on 20/09/2019. However, the Member-II of the Board of Revenue reversed the decision on 06/08/2020, leading to this writ petition. -----Issues: 1- Whether the plea of a private partition raised by the respondents was adequately addressed. 2- Whether the Provincial Government, Revenue Officials, and Member-II of the Board of Revenue should have been made parties to the petition. 3- Whether the remand order by the Member-II of the Board of Revenue is subject to judicial review under constitutional jurisdiction. 4- Whether the factual controversy involved in the case is amenable to judicial review. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Private Partition: The Member-II of the Board of Revenue remanded the case for recording pro and contra evidence to ascertain the genuineness of the alleged private partition and determine if the agricultural nature of the land had changed due to construction. Necessary Parties: The petitioners failed to array the Provincial Government, Revenue Officials, and the Member-II of the Board of Revenue, whose order was under challenge. The court cited precedents emphasizing the necessity of including all relevant parties. Remand Order: The court held that a remand order, being non-final, is not open to judicial review under constitutional jurisdiction. The judgment emphasized that such orders only send matters back for re-examination and do not finally determine the claims or rights of the parties. Factual Controversy: The court noted that the case involved factual controversies, which are not suitable for resolution under constitutional jurisdiction. The court reiterated that disputed questions of fact requiring evidence are better addressed through ordinary civil litigation. -----Citations/Precedents: Oazi Munir Ahmed v. Rawalpindi Medical College and Allied Hospital through Principal and others, 2019 SCMR 648: Emphasized the necessity of including all relevant parties in a constitutional petition. Liagat Ali and 8 others v. Municipal Corporation, Mirpur and 5 others, 1997 CLC 692 (Supreme Court AJ&K): Highlighted the importance of including necessary parties. Water and Power Development Authority/Lahore Electricity Supply Company Limited through Sub-Divisional Officer, Sheikhpura v. Messrs Bhatti Ice and Rice Mills, Buchiki through Proprietor and another, 2004 YLR 1263 (Lahore): Reiterated the need for proper party inclusion. Allah Ditta and others v. Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue and others, 2018 SCMR 1177: Stated that remand orders are not final and are not subject to judicial review under constitutional jurisdiction. Malik Rah Nawaz through Legal Heirs v. Mst. Saban and another, 2019 MLD 1 (Lahore): Supported the non-reviewability of remand orders. Mst. Salim-un-Nisa and 5 others v. Aziz and another, 2009 CLC 860 (Peshawar): Reinforced the principle that remand orders are not open to judicial review. Akbar Ali and 18 others v. Mukhtar Ahmad and 14 others, 2007 CLC 768 (Lahore): Confirmed the non-final nature of remand orders. Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Forest Department, Punjab, Lahore through Divisional Forest Officer v. Ghulam Nabi and 3 others, PLD 2001 Supreme Court 415: Clarified the limited scope of constitutional jurisdiction in cases involving disputed facts.