Summary: Background: The petitioner sought declaratory reliefs regarding income tax exemptions applicable to the erstwhile Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) after their merger with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. The petitioner, a government carriage contractor, claimed that income from their carriage business within the territorial limits of the former PATA should be exempt from income tax and not subject to withholding tax under Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, based on SRO No. 1213(1)/2018. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner’s income from the carriage business within the former PATA is exempt from income tax. 2- Whether payments made to the petitioner by the Food Department are subject to withholding tax under Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. 3- Whether the petitioner is required to provide an exemption certificate under Section 159 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to avail the exemption. 4- Whether any tax deducted under Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is liable to be refunded to the petitioner. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Income Tax Exemption: The court held that the petitioner's income from the carriage business within the former PATA is exempt from income tax as per SRO No. 1213(1)/2018, which provides tax relief to residents of the erstwhile PATA for a specified period. This exemption applies from 1st June 2018 to 30th June 2023. ---Withholding Tax: The court declared that payments made to the petitioner by the Food Department are not subject to withholding tax under Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The exemption provided under SRO No. 1213(1)/2018 covers the deduction or collection of withholding tax for residents of the former PATA. ---Exemption Certificate: The court stated that the petitioner is not required to provide an exemption certificate under Section 159 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to avail the exemption. The provisions of Division III of Part V of Chapter X, including Section 159, do not apply to individuals or entities domiciled in the former PATA during the exemption period. Tax Refund: The court ruled that any tax deducted under Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, from the petitioner during the exemption period is liable to be refunded. The petitioner is entitled to a refund of any taxes collected in violation of the exemption granted under SRO No. 1213(1)/2018. ----Citations/Precedents: Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 SRO No. 1213(1)/2018 dated 05.10.2018 Second Schedule, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, Part IV, Clause 110

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199---Maintainability of constitutional petition---Availability of alternate statutory remedy---Doctrine of election---Petitioner challenged an order passed under S. 221(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, through a constitutional petition---Held, that where a statutory remedy exists and is actively being pursued, constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass such mechanism---Petitioner admitted in pleadings that it intended to pursue appellate remedies available under the Ordinance, and had already received orders under Ss. 124 and 129 of the Ordinance---Filing of writ petition during pendency of departmental remedies was an abuse of process---Petitioner neither challenged vires of S. 4C of the Ordinance nor presented any compelling constitutional question justifying direct invocation of Art. 199---Attempt to rely on precedent in Shell Pakistan Ltd. v. Federation 2023 PTD 604 found misconceived, as facts were distinguishable. (b) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ----Ss. 4C, 124, 129 & 221(1)---Adjustment order---Assessment and appellate remedy---Scope---Where orders under Ss. 124, 129, and 221 are passed, proper course is to follow the appellate hierarchy prescribed under the Ordinance---Filing a writ petition to challenge an order under S. 221, without challenging the vires of the relevant taxing provision or exhausting appellate forums, is impermissible. **(c) Constitutional petition---Misuse of jurisdiction---Forum shopping---Litigant cannot simultaneously pursue parallel remedies before statutory forums and constitutional courts---Doctrine of election bars dual proceedings in different jurisdictions for same relief. **(d) Costs---Frivolous petition---Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000 for attempting to circumvent lawful process and waste court’s time. Cited Case: • Shell Pakistan Limited v. Federation of Pakistan 2023 PTD 604 (distinguished) Disposition: Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000 payable to High Court Clinic.

Summary: The survey of the aforesaid case law would show that the genesis of the Local Government is the Constitution itself (140A) which bounds the Province to regulate the institution of Local Government, the essential third tier of a democratic setup of the country. The very object is that the Local Government should function as an institution at grassroots level where the local people are able to regulate their social, economic and political affairs through an independent manner. The mandate of Constitution is that this institution should work with continuity and any interruption or halt in the process was never approved by the superior court of the country on the touchstone of Article 32 and Article 140A of the Constitution.

Summary: Background: Several constitutional petitions arose from a political event, namely the "Haqeeqi Long March," led by a political leader and party. The march commenced on October 28, 2022, from Lahore with a destination to Islamabad. On November 3, 2022, the march was disrupted by an attack in Wazirabad, resulting in one death and injuries to several individuals, including the party leader. Following the attack, party members held demonstrations and sit-ins, blocking entry and exit points in Rawalpindi, causing severe disruptions to daily life, business, traffic, and public services from November 5 to 11, 2022. These petitions were filed to address the resulting blockades and public inconvenience caused by the sit-ins. -----Issues: 1- Did the civil administration and police authorities fail to discharge their duties in managing the law and order situation during the protests? 2- Were the protests in violation of constitutional rights, specifically in relation to public order, freedom of movement, and the impact on daily life? 3- Were the respondents, including key political figures, responsible for inciting or participating in the unlawful protests? 4- What are the legal duties of the civil and law enforcement authorities under relevant laws in handling such situations? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Civil Administration and Police Failure: The court found that the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Regional Police Officer, and City Police Officer had failed to perform their duties as required by the Punjab Civil Administration Act, 2017, and the Police Order, 2002. Their role during the protests was deemed passive and ineffective, allowing the disruption to continue. Violation of Constitutional Rights: The court emphasized that the right to peaceful assembly under Article 16 of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions to maintain public order. The blockades violated the public’s rights to freedom of movement and disrupted essential services, constituting an unlawful act. Role of Political Figures: While no direct evidence was provided to hold the political leaders legally accountable for inciting the protests, the court noted their failure to publicly condemn the unlawful actions of their supporters. The leaders were expected to demonstrate responsibility but did not take appropriate measures. Legal Responsibilities of Authorities: The court reiterated that the police and civil administration have a duty to maintain public order, safeguard citizens' rights, and prevent disruptions. Their failure in handling the situation amounted to negligence and dereliction of duty. The petitions were disposed of with directions for the civil administration, police, and other relevant authorities to devise a mechanism to prevent such incidents in the future. The court referred the matter to higher authorities for an inquiry into the conduct of the involved officials, with instructions for appropriate disciplinary action. -----Citations/Precedents: Watan Party and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2011 KLR Supreme Court 298) Suo Motu Case No.7 of 2017 (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 318) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Eli Lilly Pakistan (2009 SCMR 1279) Government of Pakistan v. Zamir Ahmad (PLD 1975 SC 667) Shahid Orakzai v. Pakistan through Secretary Law (PLD 2011 SC 365)

Summary: Legal heirs of civil servant--Qualifying service for entitlement ofpensionary benefits:The predecessor in interest/husband of the petitioner thoughremained in service for a considerable period since 2009 till2020 and he was regularized in the year 2020 but he was noteligible for pensionary benefits for not qualifying thelegibility criteria i.e., 10 years qualifying service, therefore,keeping in view the law laid down by the apex Court in casesMinistry of Finance through Secretary and others Vs.Syed Afroz Akhtar Rizvi and others (2021 SCMR 1546)which in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution of IslamicRepublic of Pakistan, 1973 is not only binding on this Courtbut on all the Courts throughout the country therefore, withutmost respect to the decision of the Larger Bench of thisCourt, the decision of the apex Court shall be followed. Thus,the instant matter where the husband of petitioner has notcompleted qualifying service, was not eligible for pensionarybenefits as such, the service rendered on contractual sidesince 2009 till 2020 could not be counted for providing therelief of pensionary benefits under article 371-A of C.S.R orrules 2.3 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules,1963 to the petitioner.

Summary: (--Regarding constitution of Benches and fixation of cases at the Supreme Court---Upon examining the relevant provisions in the Supreme Court Rules, it was found that the power to nominate judges for benches rests with the Chief Justice, and there is no authority for the Registrar or the Chief Justice to change the composition of a bench or reduce the number of judges. The court referenced previous cases that emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Arbitrary reconstitution of benches undermines the judicial system and erodes public confidence. The court further highlighted the constitutional rights of equal protection of law and fair trial, which exclude arbitrariness and unstructured discretion. The court also raised concerns about the methodology for fixing cases and the apparent lack of logic or reasonableness in the process. It was revealed that a large number of cases, including civil petitions for leave to appeal filed in 2020 and 2021, were pending adjudication. The court questioned why these cases took precedence over others filed many years earlier. The Registrar referred to a circular from 2017 regarding urgent cases, but none of the cases listed for hearing fell into those categories. No other circulars, orders, notifications, or memoranda were mentioned to explain the methodology for case fixation. The court concluded that the exercise of power should adhere to the principles of justice and should not be arbitrary or fanciful. It stressed the need to structure discretionary power and avoid its arbitrary exercise. The court held itself to the same standards it applies to others and questioned the justification for not doing so. In light of these findings, the court expressed concerns about the arbitrary use of power and emphasized the importance of fair trial, due process, and the rule of law. It called for the rationalization and regulation of discretionary powers to ensure the highest quality of justice.

Summary: Facts: The Provincial Assemblies of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) were dissolved earlier than their term completion. In Punjab, the dissolution occurred due to the Governor not acting on the Chief Minister's advice within 48 hours, while in KP, the Governor dissolved the Assembly based on the Chief Minister's advice. This initiated the process for general elections in these provinces, which constitutionally must be held within 90 days of dissolution. The confusion arose over who is constitutionally responsible for setting the election date, leading to delays and legal challenges in the high courts.---Issue: The primary issues before the Supreme Court were:Who has the constitutional authority to appoint the date for holding general elections to a Provincial Assembly upon its dissolution?How and when is this constitutional responsibility to be discharged?What are the constitutional responsibilities and duties of the Federation and the Province concerning holding the general election?----Holding: The Supreme Court held by a majority of 3:2 that:In cases where a Provincial Assembly is dissolved by the Governor's order, the Governor is responsible for setting the election date.In situations where the Assembly dissolves due to the expiry of its term or the Governor does not act on the Chief Minister's advice, the President of Pakistan, acting independently and not on the advice of the Prime Minister, is responsible for announcing the election date, as per the Elections Act, 2017.The Election Commission of Pakistan must consult proactively with the President or Governor, as applicable, to ensure elections are held within the constitutionally mandated timeframe.The Federation and Provincial Governments have a constitutional duty to assist the Election Commission in conducting the elections by providing necessary resources, personnel, and security.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the constitutional and legislative framework provides clear guidelines on the process following the dissolution of Provincial Assemblies. The distinction between different scenarios of dissolution dictates who holds the authority to set the election date. The Court emphasized the fundamental importance of holding periodic general elections to uphold parliamentary democracy and the sovereignty of the people.---Judgment: The petitions were disposed of in accordance with the terms set out in the majority judgment, affirming the President's competence to set the election date for the Punjab Assembly and invalidating his order concerning the KP Assembly, for which the Governor should set the date.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: (The PEMRA (TV/Radio Broadcast Operations) Regulations, 2002 did not derive their power from the parent statute i.e. the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 and therefore, were void ab initio and remained non est., there is no power to levy and recover surcharge on late payment of annual fee under the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002) The case revolved around the demand for payment of surcharge by PEMRA on late payment of annual fees by private broadcasters who owned and operated television channels. The surcharge was claimed under Regulation No. 9(5) of the PEMRA (TV/Radio Broadcast Operations) Regulations, 2002. The respondents challenged the validity of the surcharge, arguing that it was beyond the scope of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002. The Supreme Court examined the legal framework and found that the 2002 Regulations, under which the surcharge was imposed, were made without proper authority and were not notified in the official Gazette. The court concluded that the 2002 Regulations were ultra vires to the Ordinance and, therefore, void ab initio. Furthermore, the court determined that even after the Ordinance was amended through the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Amendment) Act, 2007, there was no specific provision empowering PEMRA to impose a surcharge on late payment of annual fees. The power to levy and recover surcharge was not included in the term "other charges" mentioned in the amended Ordinance. In light of these findings, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, declaring the demand for surcharge under the 2002 Regulations as ultra vires to the Ordinance. The show cause notices demanding the surcharge were set aside, and the respondents' constitutional petition was allowed.