Summary: Background: In Writ Petition No.3222 of 2011, Ahmad Saeed, the petitioner, challenged the cancellation of his provisional admission by the COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (referred to as "Institute") in Islamabad. The cancellation was based on Saeed's failure to meet the minimum eligibility criteria by obtaining a certain percentage of marks in the Intermediate Examination. ----Issues: Whether the cancellation of Saeed's provisional admission by the Institute was justified. Whether the Institute's actions were in accordance with its rules and admission policy. Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were infringed upon. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court examined the nature of "provisional" admission and the conditions attached to it. It noted that provisional admission is subject to certain conditions, such as meeting the minimum eligibility criteria, which Saeed failed to fulfill by obtaining the required percentage of marks in the Intermediate Examination. Therefore, the Institute was within its rights to cancel his admission. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining eligibility criteria and promoting merit in educational institutions. It highlighted that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked when an individual's accrued rights are infringed upon by a public functionary, which was not the case here. Additionally, the court rejected the petitioner's argument of mala fide or discrimination on the part of the Institute, noting that the grant of provisional admission demonstrated the Institute's leniency. Based on these considerations, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Institute's decision to cancel Saeed's admission. ----Citations/Precedents: The court referred to various cases to support its reasoning, including Misbah Riaz v. Government of Pakistan, Sehresh Zainab v. Chairman Selection Committee, University of Health Sciences v. Sheikh Nasir Subhani, and others.

Summary: Against Judgement & Decree, Maintainability

Summary: S.9,10,18,32 NAO:Embezzlement & misuse of cheque books,prosecution witness were consistent,expert report positive(Appeal dismissed)

Summary: Privatization of Habib Bank Limited [hereinafter referred to as the ?HBL?] --- A mere advice or suggestion from an international financial institution, which assists and aids developing countries towards economic progress, may not amount to a pressure of the kind to have deprived the competent authority under the law to have taken independent decision. Better performance and rising profits of Habib Bank Limited (HBL) justified the impugned process of sale and made it a credible exercise. Approval of HBL's privatization by the Privatization Committee was within the purview of Privatization Commission and the whole process did not reflect violation of any statutory provision. Process of privatization was neither tainted with lack of transparency or mala fides nor the successful bidder lacked qualifications prescribed in law.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.