Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.302,324,148,149 PPCNight occurrence,previous blood feud,all male members of a family charged,common object wants further inquiry(Bail allowed)

Summary: S.9C CNSAVehicle in active control of accused, Positive FSL report,prosecution proved the case(Appeal dismissed)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Word 'person'---Scope---Word 'person' used in Art.199 of the Constitution is in themost ordinary contacts, used for a group of people, body, authority etc., thus a person includes auniversity, its vice-chancellor and its authorities as well.(b) Allama lqbal Open University Act (XXXIX of 1974)-------S. 31---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 212---Constitutional petition--- Maintainability---Petitioner was an employee of Allama lqbal Open University and major penalty of compulsoryretirement was imposed upon him---Plea raised by authorities was that bar contained in Art.212of the Constitution was applicable and jurisdiction vested with Service Tribunal---Validity---Bar contained in Art.212 of the Constitution did not apply to service matters of the University---Against an order of Appellate Authority, no remedy had been provided by Allama lqbal OpenUniversity Act, 1974, therefore, under Art.199 of the Constitution, "a High Court may if it issatisfied that no other adequate remedy is proved by law" could entertain Constitutional petitionagainst order of appellate authority of the University---Only allegation levelled against petitionerwas that he forwarded vouchers amounting to Rs.38,380 submitted by a part time tutor, whoperformed his duty and was entitled for T.A./D.A.---No amount was drawn on the basis ofvouchers in question, therefore, no loss had been incurred to the University---Allegation thatpetitioner did not verify the vouchers was not established---Both Inquiry Committees and SubCommittee failed to collect any evidence against petitioner showing an attempt to embezzlealleged amount, therefore, charge framed against petitioner was disproved---Imposing of penaltyof compulsory retirement by Executive Council of the University was unjustified, not sustainableand resultantly set aside---It was not proved that after compulsory retirement, petitioner wasindulged in any profitable business or service---Petitioner had been facing inquiries and agony oflitigation since 2003 to 2007, respectively, therefore, service of petitioner was ordered to berestored with all back benefits, with effect from the date his service was discontinued---Petitionwas allowed in circumstances.

Summary: ''The Courts generally apply the "function test" to consider whether a statutory body is a "person" within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution. Constitutional petition before High Court by an employee of a statutory body is maintainable subject to "function test". --- The case of Muhammad Dawood and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2007 PLC (C.S.)1046) involved employees of statutory/corporate bodies, including the Civil Aviation Authority, who were proceeded against under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Their appeals before the Service Tribunal were abated, leading them to challenge the departmental authority's orders in writ jurisdiction. The High Court of Sindh, through Chief Justice Mr. Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed, concluded that state-controlled corporations remain amenable to the jurisdiction of the court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the rule of master and servant is inapplicable in cases of statutory violations, and the term "violation of law" extends beyond specific statutory provisions to encompass broader legal principles, including natural justice.The case was affirmed in Civil Aviation Authority through Director General v. Javed Ahmad (2009 SCMR 956), where the Supreme Court acknowledged the High Court's authority to review actions under the Removal from Service Ordinance, 2000. The court emphasized the constitutional jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the ordinance.The principles deduced from the case law include:Violation of service rules by statutory bodies can be enforced through writ jurisdiction if no adequate remedy is available.Non-statutory rules or instructions for internal use are not enforceable through writ jurisdiction.Natural justice principles apply in disciplinary proceedings for public employments created by statutory bodies.The Removal from Service Ordinance, 2000 has an overriding effect, making all disciplinary proceedings subject to writ jurisdiction.However, subsequent cases (e.g., Pakistan International Airlines Corporation PLD 2010 SC 676, Executive Council Allama Iqbal Open University 2010 SCMR 1484, Hyderabad Electric Supply Co. 2010 PSC 1392) created a conflict of opinion on remedies available to employees of statutory bodies. These cases did not consider the statutory intervention of the Ordinance 2000, leading to a need for resolution by the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court, in its detailed judgment, highlighted the legislative intent of the Ordinance 2000, emphasizing that employees in corporation service were subject to this law. Deprivation of the right of appeal was deemed violative of a fair trial and due process, as guaranteed by Article 10A of the Constitution. The court concluded that the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 199 to ensure compliance with the ordinance and dismissed the appeals.The detailed judgment discussed conflicting opinions in previous cases and emphasized the need for consistency in judicial opinions, considering the evolving nature of law and adherence to constitutional mandates.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.