Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: The petitioner was an employee of the Islamabad Traffic Police and was residing in a quarter originally allotted to their father, who was a retired Superintendent. The petitioner had applied for the allotment of this quarter to him as the real son of the original allottee, but the application was pending.The petitioner's counsel argued that based on judgments from the Lahore High Court, the petitioner was entitled to the allotment of the quarter. They mentioned that other colleagues in the Islamabad Traffic Police had been allocated similar accommodations. The counsel also highlighted the petitioner's hardship, mentioning that the petitioner's father had health issues, and his sisters were pursuing their education, leaving the petitioner with no alternative shelter.The Deputy Attorney-General contended that the petitioner's department, the Islamabad Traffic Police, had its own pool of accommodation or funds for renting houses, making them ineligible for accommodation from the Estate Office. Furthermore, the petitioner was living in the quarter without authorization.The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner was not entitled to the allotment of the quarter as his department maintained its own accommodation pool. Additionally, the court found that the petitioner had approached the court with unclean hands by failing to disclose the pendency of a civil suit regarding the same quarter and by filing the constitutional petition while another suit was ongoing. The court considered this an abuse of the legal process and ruled against the petitioner.

Summary: (1)disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in constitutional jurisdiction (2) the dismissal of applications by an ex-officio Justice of Peace/Addl: Sessions Judge, based on a report from the concerned SHO, is valid] The learned Addl. Sessions Judge of Islamabad, after obtaining a report from the local police, issued the an order, the order stated that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the accused persons regarding a shop. The judge mentions that civil suits related to the shop are pending before the civil court in Islamabad and that the parties involved have a history of filing frivolous applications against each other. Therefore, the judge finds the petitioner's version to be doubtful and refuses to issue a direction for case registration. Instead, the judge suggests that filing a complaint would be an alternate remedy if desired. The order refers to a previous case, Rai Ashraf and others vs. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and others (PLD 2010 S.C. 691), where the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in constitutional jurisdiction and that the dismissal of applications by an ex-officio Justice of Peace/Addl: Sessions Judge, based on a report from the concerned SHO, is valid. Considering the above perspective and finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Islamabad High Court dismissed the writ petition for lacking merits.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.