Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 4,353 judgments in total from the Balochistan High Court.

• Abdul Karim vs Speaker, Balochistan Provincial Assembly Secretariat, Quetta and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 564 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-12-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The State1996 PLD Quetta 40 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Local1996 PLD Quetta 21 · Balochistan High Court
  Octroi contractpublic auctionadministrative discretionpublic intereststatutory compliancelocal governmentwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the order of the Secretary, Local Government, Balochistan, which awarded an Octroi contract to a private party without conducting a public auction. The core legal question was whether the government possessed the authority to bypass mandatory auction procedures and award contracts directly by invoking "public interest" or by relaxing rules. The Court held that the impugned order was passed without lawful authority and was of no legal effect. It determined that statutory functionaries exercising administrative powers must strictly conform to the methods prescribed by law. The Court rejected the "public interest" justification, reasoning that competitive bidding is the only mechanism that truly serves the public interest by maximizing municipal revenue. It further clarified that while the government has the power to relax rules, such power does not authorize the arbitrary bypassing of mandatory auction requirements for contract awards. Consequently, the Court set aside the award and directed the authorities to proceed with a fresh public auction in accordance with the relevant rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government award an Octroi contract directly to a party without holding a public auction?
  • Does the concept of 'public interest' justify bypassing mandatory statutory auction procedures for government contracts?
  • Is a statutory functionary required to strictly adhere to the methods prescribed by law when exercising administrative powers?
  • Does the power to relax rules under the West Pakistan Municipal Committees Octroi Rules, 1964, permit the government to bypass the requirement of public auction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Additional Chief Secretary (Development), And Other(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 19) · Balochistan High Court · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Additional Chief Secretary (Development) and Chairman, B-WASA, Quetta and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 523 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) N.S. Enterprises And Others vs Government of Pakistan Through1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1266 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• (M/s.) Metco Shipbreakers vs Pakistan Through The Secretary Ministry OfK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 26 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• (M/s) Al-Hamza Ship Breaking Comany And Others vs Government of1996 P.C.T.L.R. 314 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Haji) Abdul Ghafoor vs Muhammad IbrahimK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 49 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-10-19Read full judgment →
• Zulekha Bibi vs Abdul SamadK.L.R 1995 Criminal Cases 401 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
• Zarak Khan vs The Sessions Judge, Quetta and 5 others1995 MLD 1831 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-04-06Read full judgment →
• Zarak Khan vs The Session Judge Quetta And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 623 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-04-06Read full judgment →
• Z.Arak Khan vs The Sessions Judge, Quetta And 5 Other1995 MLD 1831 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-04-06Read full judgment →
• Wali Jan and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1170 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
• Usman Enterprises vs Collector of Customs, Central Excise Quetta"1995 CLC 1137 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-17
  customs dutyassessment of valuenormal pricescrap vesseldiscretionary powerconstitutional petitionimport valuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the assessment of customs duty on an imported scrap vessel, M.T. "SHINING STAR," by the Collector of Customs. The petitioner contended that the assessment at U.S. $160 per Light Displacement Ton (LDT) was arbitrary, illegal, and based on an unlawful departmental letter dated 7-1-1992, which this Court had previously struck down. The core legal question was whether the customs authorities acted arbitrarily or in accordance with the statutory requirements for determining the "normal price" under the Customs Act, 1969. The Court held that while the 1992 letter was indeed unlawful, the specific assessment in this case was not based on that letter. Instead, the Court found that the Customs Authorities had properly exercised their discretion by considering the prevalent market values of similar vessels imported during the same period, such as M.T. "Hellas" and M.T. "Horizon." The Court affirmed that customs authorities possess the discretion to determine the normal price of imported goods, provided such discretion is exercised reasonably, based on evidence, and in compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969.

  Questions settled

  • Does the determination of the 'normal price' of imported goods under Section 25 of the Customs Act 1969 require the customs authorities to consider the value of similar or identical items imported during the same period?
  • Can the High Court interfere with the assessment of customs duty if the authorities have exercised their discretion based on available evidence and market comparisons?
  • Is an assessment of customs duty valid if it is based on market evidence rather than an unlawful departmental directive?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman Enterprises vs Collector of Customs Central Excise, QuettaK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custam Cases 29 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• The State vs Doda1995 PLD Quetta 56 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Khan and anothers vs Ishaqzai and 3 others1995 CLC 78 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-06-07Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Ahmed Khan and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 765 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-04-21Read full judgment →
• Shams-Ud-Din and 10 others vs Speaker, Balochistan Provincial1995 PLC (C.S.) 8 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
• Semco Salvage Pte Limited- vs M.V. Kaptan Yusuf Kalkavan Turkish and another1995 MLD 706 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
• Semco Salvage Pte Limited vs M.V. Kaptan Yusuf Kalkavan Turkish And Another1995 MLD 706 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Khan vs Province of Balochistan1995 PTD 350 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-10
  income taxgovernment employeestribal areassalary taxationtax liabilitystatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a government employee posted in Dalabandin, a tribal area, challenged the deduction of income tax from his salary, arguing that the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was not extended to tribal areas and thus exempted him from such payments. The core legal question was whether government employees serving in tribal areas are exempt from income tax deductions on their salaries. The Court held that the liability to pay income tax on salary is determined by the source of the income, specifically whether it is paid by the Federal or Provincial Government or a local authority in Pakistan. The Court found that under Section 12(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, all such employees are liable to pay income tax regardless of their place of posting or residence. The key principle laid down is that the receipt of salary from the State exchequer automatically triggers tax liability under the Ordinance, irrespective of the locality or nature of duties, unless a specific exemption applies.

  Questions settled

  • Are government employees serving in tribal areas exempt from income tax deductions on their salaries?
  • Does the place of posting or residence affect the liability of a government employee to pay income tax under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is income earned by a government employee from the State exchequer taxable regardless of the geographical location of the service?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1203 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-09Read full judgment →
• Raja Khalid Hussain Banwa vs The State through Federal Investigating1995 P Cr. L J 735 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Raja Khalid Hussain Banwa vs The State Through Federal InvestigatingK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 249 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Quetta Municipal Corporation vs Registrar Trade UnionsK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 1 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Quetta Municipal Corporation through Administrator and another vs Registrar, Trade Unions, Balochistan, Directorate of Labour and Manpower, Quetta and 3 others1995 PLC 151 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-10-10
  industrial relationstrade union registrationdefinition of industrymunicipal corporationlabour lawconstitutional petitionlachesworkmen
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the registration of trade unions for employees of the Quetta Municipal Corporation. The core legal question was whether the Municipal Corporation constitutes an 'industry' or 'industrial establishment' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, thereby entitling its employees to form a trade union. The Court held that the Quetta Municipal Corporation does not qualify as an 'industry' or 'establishment' under the Ordinance. It reasoned that the definition of 'industry' requires an organized, systematic enterprise involving cooperation between labour and capital for the production, distribution, or consumption of wealth or material services. Municipal functions, while serving the public, do not meet this criteria. Consequently, the registration of the trade unions was declared illegal, void, and without lawful authority. The Court further held that actions taken in clear contravention of statutory provisions are nullities and cannot be shielded by the doctrine of laches. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Labour Court's order that had remanded the registration issue for reconsideration, effectively cancelling the union's registration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Quetta Municipal Corporation constitute an 'industry' or 'establishment' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Are employees of a municipal corporation entitled to form a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can an action taken in clear contravention of law be protected by the doctrine of laches?
  • Does the employer have a right of appeal against the registration of a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Papers Ack Corporation And Others vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance & Economic Affairs Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad And Others1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1134 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmed vs Selection Committee through its Chairman and 5 others1995 PLD Quetta 36 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-09-08Read full judgment →
• Nazak MIRConvict vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 724 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-16
  joint trialappellate jurisdictionHudood Ordinanceconflict of judgmentscompetency of appealcomposite judgmentFederal Shariat Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a conviction and sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Sessions Judge, Loralai, under Section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, read with Section 216-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether an appeal against a conviction in a joint trial, where some co-accused received sentences exceeding two years while the appellant received exactly two years, lies before the High Court or the Federal Shariat Court. The Court held that the appeal is not maintainable before the High Court. It ruled that the term "order" in Section 24 of the Ordinance refers to the trial court's composite judgment. Consequently, if a trial court's order imposes a sentence exceeding two years for any offence under the Ordinance, the entire order is appealable to the Federal Shariat Court, regardless of the specific sentence awarded to an individual co-accused. This principle prevents the splitting of judgments and avoids conflicting appellate findings, ensuring the consistent administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal lie to the High Court or the Federal Shariat Court when a joint trial results in some sentences exceeding two years and others being two years or less under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Does the term 'order' in Section 24 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 refer to the individual conviction or the composite judgment of the trial court?
  • Can a single judgment in a joint trial be split for the purpose of filing separate appeals in different appellate courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazak Mir vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 4 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-16Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Hashim Khan1995 CLC 88 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-06-13
  constructive res judicatasplitting of claimswithdrawal of suitOrder II Rule 2 CPCcause of actionbanking litigationlimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a trial court decree awarding damages and interest to the respondent, Hashim Khan, against the National Bank of Pakistan. The respondent had previously filed a suit for the recovery of funds deposited via pay-in-slips, which was settled out of court, leading to the withdrawal of the suit and payment of the principal amount. Subsequently, the respondent filed a new suit claiming additional damages and interest for the period the funds remained blocked. The core legal question was whether this subsequent suit was barred by the principles of constructive res judicata, Order II, Rule 2, and Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that the suit was barred, as the plaintiff had failed to include all claims and reliefs arising from the same cause of action in the initial suit and had withdrawn the previous suit without seeking liberty to file a fresh one. The Court emphasized that a party cannot split claims or vex an opponent twice for the same cause of action.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission to include all reliefs flowing from the same cause of action in a suit bar a subsequent suit for the omitted reliefs under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a plaintiff institute a fresh suit for the same subject matter after withdrawing a previous suit without obtaining the court's permission under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a settlement and withdrawal of a suit for a principal amount preclude a subsequent claim for interest or damages related to the same transaction?
  • Is a court required to consider the issue of limitation even if it has not been specifically raised by the defendant?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s.) Usman Enterprises vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1143 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan and 3 others vs M/s.1995 PLD Quetta 41 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-25
  Intra-Court Appealwinding-up petitionCompanies Ordinance 1984original civil jurisdictionstatutory jurisdictionappellate jurisdictionLaw Reforms Ordinance 1972
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals filed before a Division Bench of the Balochistan High Court challenging orders of a Single Judge that dismissed winding-up petitions under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The core legal question is whether an Intra-Court Appeal is maintainable before a Division Bench against an order of a Single Judge passed under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, or if such appeals must lie exclusively to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the appeals are not maintainable before the Division Bench. It reasoned that jurisdiction exercised under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, is statutory in nature, rather than 'original civil jurisdiction' as contemplated by Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. Furthermore, Section 10 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, establishes a specific appellate mechanism to the Supreme Court for orders passed under the Ordinance. The Court concluded that because the Companies Ordinance provides a distinct appellate forum, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an Intra-Court Appeal against orders passed by a Company Judge, thereby rendering the present appeals incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable before a Division Bench against an order of a Single Judge passed under the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Does the jurisdiction exercised by a High Court under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, constitute 'original civil jurisdiction' under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
  • Does Section 10 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, provide an exclusive appellate forum for orders passed under the Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Chaudhry and 574 others vs Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 136 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasheed and 13 others vs Chairman, Balochistan Labour1995 PLC 242 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raeese (Azam) vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary, S&Ga Department1995 PLC (C.S.) 151 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-08-17
  constitutional petitionpromotionterms and conditions of serviceservice tribunal jurisdictionbar of jurisdictiondiscriminationpro forma promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a retired civil servant seeking pro forma promotion to Grade-21 and consequential benefits after the Provincial Government failed to promote him despite unconditional recommendation by the Special Selection Committee and successful completion of the mandatory Staff College training, while another officer was promoted. The core legal questions involved whether promotion forms part of the terms and conditions of service, whether the Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain an appeal regarding promotion where the relevant statute bars appeals against fitness for promotion, and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable in such circumstances. The Balochistan High Court held that while promotion falls under terms and conditions of service, Section 4(b) of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act 1974 bars appeals regarding fitness for promotion or promotion to a higher post. Consequently, since no alternative remedy by way of appeal exists before the Service Tribunal, the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 remains competent based on the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium. On merits, finding clear discrimination and no lawful justification for withholding the petitioner's promotion, the Court directed the respondents to grant the petitioner pro forma promotion with all resultant service benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether promotion falls within the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order or decision determining the fitness of a person for promotion?
  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable when the Service Tribunals Act bars an appeal against a departmental decision regarding promotion?
  • Whether withholding promotion while promoting a similarly situated officer without fulfilling mandatory prerequisites constitutes actionable discrimination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Pahoo Mal1995 MLD 1064 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan Musa and others vs Sardar Muhammad Javed Musa1995 CLC 51 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan Musa And Other vs Sardar Muhammad Jayed MusaK.L.R 1995 Civil Cases 392 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Munir Nabi Khan and 6 others1995 PLD Quetta 50 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-09-15
  educational malpracticeunfair meanscivil court jurisdictionnatural justicedisciplinary proceedingsacademic autonomyrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a student, challenged his rustication and failure in an examination paper due to alleged use of unfair means, seeking a declaration and mandatory injunction against the educational institution. The core legal questions were whether the civil court had jurisdiction to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings of an educational body governed by specific regulations, and whether the petitioner had been denied natural justice. The High Court held that the civil courts should not interfere with the internal disciplinary procedures of educational institutions when they act within their prescribed regulations, provided a fair opportunity of hearing is afforded. The Court found that the petitioner failed to substantiate allegations of mala fides, noting that he had been given an opportunity to defend himself before the Examination Committee but failed to appear. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists under the relevant regulations, a civil suit is not the appropriate forum. The principle laid down is that courts will not substitute their judgment for that of academic bodies in disciplinary matters absent clear illegality or violation of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court interfere with the disciplinary decisions of an educational institution regarding the use of unfair means in examinations?
  • Does the failure to exhaust an efficacious statutory appellate remedy preclude a party from seeking relief through a civil suit?
  • Is a student entitled to challenge the findings of an Examination Committee in a civil court when the committee has followed the prescribed regulations and provided an opportunity for a hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Munir Nabi Khan and 6 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 238 · Balochistan High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Mst. Sameena Akhtar and another1995 CLC 1519 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-16
  custody of minorwelfare of minorconstitutional jurisdictionguardianshipappellate interferencefamily court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an appellate order by the Additional District Judge-I, Quetta, which set aside a Family Court judgment granting custody of a minor to the petitioner-father. The core legal question was whether the appellate court erred in overturning the custody order and whether the High Court should interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction regarding findings of fact on the welfare of the minor. The High Court held that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, and the petitioner failed to prove that the mother's custody was detrimental or that the minor lacked proper care or educational facilities. The Court emphasized that financial superiority of a father does not automatically entitle him to custody over the mother. Furthermore, the Court held that findings of fact made by a court of competent jurisdiction, even if potentially incorrect, do not warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction unless there is a patent illegality or misreading of evidence. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the welfare of the child is a factual determination best left to the trial courts.

  Questions settled

  • Is the financial status of a father the sole or primary factor in determining the custody of a minor?
  • Can a High Court interfere with findings of fact regarding the welfare of a minor in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does a court of competent jurisdiction's decision on a question of fact or law render it 'without lawful authority' if the decision is merely incorrect?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs (Mst) Sameena Akhtar And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 413 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and another vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Services and-General Administration Department, Quetta and 4 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 567 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-09-26
  writ of quo warrantoinducting armed forces officersrelaxation of rulescivil service recruitmentjurisdiction barservice tribunalsdirect appointment BPS-19
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition (writ of quo warranto) challenged a notification dated 26-10-1991 issued by the Government of Balochistan, which relaxed rule 5 of the Balochistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules 1984 under rule 12 thereof to directly induct a serving Army Colonel (respondent No. 5) into BPS-19 on a regular basis at the top of the seniority list. The official respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The High Court rejected this objection, holding that an inquiry into the legal authority of an individual to hold a public office via quo warranto does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act 1974. On the merits, the Court held that federal and provincial policy guidelines permit regular induction of lower ranks only, whereas officers of the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel and above are eligible solely for re-employment on a contract basis. Furthermore, under the 1984 Rules, initial recruitment is confined to BPS-17 and higher grades are reserved for promotion. Relaxing rules could not create a direct appointment to BPS-19. The High Court declared the notification void and issued without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court from entertaining a writ of quo warranto challenging an illegal induction into civil service?
  • Can a statutory rule empowering relaxation of recruitment rules be exercised to directly appoint an individual to a BPS-19 post reserved for promotion?
  • Can a serving Army officer of the rank of Colonel be inducted on a regular basis into the provincial civil service in violation of government induction policies?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal And Another vs Government of Balochistan And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 24 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Zulekha Bibi vs Abdul Samad and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1730 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-17
  bail cancellationplea of alibiprima facie caseheinous offencesprohibitory clausekidnappingcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta, in a case involving serious offences including kidnapping and grievous hurt. The core legal question was whether the respondent's plea of alibi, supported by documents suggesting he was on an official tour, warranted bail despite the existence of incriminating material connecting him to the alleged offences. The Court held that the bail should be cancelled. It reasoned that while a plea of alibi is a valid defence, it cannot be determined at the bail stage based on affidavits or documents alone, as this would amount to a premature pre-judgment of the case. The Court established that where a prima facie case exists and the offences are of a heinous nature falling within the prohibitory clause of the relevant law, the plea of alibi must be tested through evidence at trial rather than being used to secure bail. Consequently, the Court cancelled the bail, emphasizing that the concession of bail should not be granted when sufficient incriminating material is present.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of alibi be determined at the bail stage to grant relief to an accused?
  • Should bail be cancelled if a prima facie case exists for offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to pre-judge the merits of a defence plea of alibi during bail proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Gul And Another vs (Mst.) Khor Bibi And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 518 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-05-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aamna Bibi vs Kashifurrehman and another1995 P Cr. L J 730 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-10
  criminal revisionsummoning of witnessesmaterial witnessjust decision of the caseinvestigation lapsescourt's discretionary powerSection 540 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Quetta, which dismissed an application to summon and record the statements of four additional eye-witnesses in a murder trial. The petitioner, the mother of the deceased, argued that these witnesses were crucial but had been overlooked by the investigating agency. The core legal question was the scope and application of the court's power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon witnesses not included in the initial prosecution schedule. The High Court held that the trial court's dismissal, based on the application being filed at a 'belated stage,' was legally unsustainable. The Court clarified that Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, empowers the court to summon witnesses at any stage of an inquiry or trial if their evidence is essential for a just decision. The principle laid down is that while courts should not act to fill gaps in the prosecution's case, they are not passive observers and must exercise their mandatory duty to summon material witnesses when necessary to uncover the truth and ensure justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power of a court under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon witnesses expire after the closure of prosecution evidence?
  • Is a trial court obligated to summon a witness not listed in the prosecution schedule if their evidence is essential for a just decision?
  • Can a trial court exercise its powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon witnesses even if the application is filed at a late stage of the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Salal Akbar Bugti vs Khawand Bakhsh and 4 others1995 P Cr. L J 61 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mistri Muhammad Ramzan vs Noor Muhammad and 2 others1995 PLD Quetta 5 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-06-13
  constitutional petitionamendment of plaintreview jurisdictionsuccessor judgecause of actioncivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a civil suit instituted in 1983 seeking a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding a residential property in Quetta. The plaintiff later sought to amend the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C., which was dismissed by the trial court and, on revision, by the District Judge in February 1993 on the ground that the proposed amendment would fundamentally alter the nature of the suit after eight years of litigation. However, a successor District Judge subsequently entertained a review petition and allowed the amendment, prompting the current constitutional challenge. The core legal questions concern the proper scope of review powers under Section 114 and Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C., and the permissibility of amending plaints to introduce entirely new causes of action. The Balochistan High Court held that the successor judge acted without lawful authority by using review powers to overturn a considered decision merely on a purported failure to follow precedent, without satisfying statutory review criteria. The Court reaffirmed that review cannot be used as an appeal against one's own judgment and that amendments introducing a new cause of action or changing the suit's complexion after prolonged delay are impermissible.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a successor judge can exercise review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to reverse a considered decision of a predecessor without satisfying the statutory grounds for review?
  • Can a plaintiff be permitted to amend a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to introduce an entirely new cause of action and change the fundamental nature of the suit after a prolonged delay?
  • Does a misinterpretation of law or failure to follow a precedent constitute a sufficient ground for review under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mewa Khan vs The State1995 PLD Quetta 108 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-09-30
  harbouringmens reacriminal intentco-accused confessionbenefit of the doubtexamination of accusedmaterial circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 212 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly harbouring the principal accused in a multiple murder case. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the essential ingredients of the offence including mens rea, knowledge, and intentional concealment, and whether the non-compliance with section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 caused prejudice to the accused. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution evidence was contradictory and unreliable, that mens rea and knowledge of the crime were mandatory prerequisites that had not been proven, and that the failure to put incriminating circumstances to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiated the conviction. The court laid down that harbouring or concealment under section 212 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 cannot be punished without proof of a criminal intent and definite knowledge or reasonable belief that the person harboured is the offender, and that a co-accused's confession cannot form the substantive foundation for another's conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the offence of harbouring under section 212 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires proof of criminal intent and knowledge that the person harboured is an offender?
  • Can a conviction under section 212 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on contradictory eyewitness testimony and uncorroborated evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a co-accused's confessional statement against another accused under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the failure to put material incriminating circumstances to an accused during examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Gul Hassan & Co. vs Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Health, Islamabad and 9 others1995 CLC 1662 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-05-30
  constitutional jurisdictionres judicatacontractual disputewrit petitionlegislative competencemala fidesfundamental rightsproperty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the cancellation of construction contracts for the Bolan Medical College and the validity of the Bolan Medical College (Board of Governors) (Amendment) Ordinance and subsequent Act. The core legal questions concerned whether the petition was barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal, whether the court could exercise constitutional jurisdiction over complex contractual disputes, and whether the legislation was ultra vires or mala fide. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the matter was indeed hit by res judicata regarding issues previously adjudicated. Furthermore, the court ruled that constitutional jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolving factual controversies, such as performance delays and construction quality, which require evidence. The court also affirmed that legislative acts cannot be challenged on grounds of mala fides and that the petitioner’s conduct and prior notice of termination precluded discretionary relief. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and unsuitable for resolving complex contractual disputes requiring evidence, and that legislative instruments are generally immune from challenges based on mala fides.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to a constitutional petition that was previously dismissed after a hearing on merits?
  • Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to resolve complex contractual disputes that require the recording of evidence?
  • Is it permissible to challenge the validity of a legislative enactment on the grounds of mala fides?
  • Does the cancellation of a contract by a state entity without a hearing necessarily violate fundamental rights regarding property?
  Read full judgment →
• Landmark Spinning Industries (Pvt.) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan1995 CLC 1128 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
• Khuda-E-Dad vs Bibi Naziran And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 200 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh vs Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali1995 CLC 1860 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-05-23
  quo warrantoelection petitiondisqualification of candidatewrit jurisdictionalternative remedyArticle 225National Assembly election
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by a voter challenging the election of a Member of the National Assembly, alleging the respondent was disqualified due to being a loan defaulter at the time of filing nomination papers and failing to disclose assets. The core legal question was whether a writ of quo warranto is maintainable to challenge the election of a member of Parliament on grounds of disqualification, despite the existence of specific election petition remedies. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It ruled that while a writ of quo warranto does not strictly require the petitioner to be an 'aggrieved party,' it is discretionary and cannot be issued when the relevant statute provides an adequate alternative remedy. The Court emphasized that Article 225 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act 1976 provide a comprehensive mechanism for challenging elections through election petitions before a Tribunal. Consequently, the High Court cannot bypass this statutory framework to adjudicate election disputes via writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ of quo warranto maintainable to challenge the election of a member of Parliament if the statute provides an adequate alternative remedy?
  • Does the requirement of being an 'aggrieved party' apply to a petition for a writ of quo warranto?
  • Can an election to the National Assembly be challenged in the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, or is it exclusively restricted to an election petition under Article 225?
  • Is the issuance of a writ of quo warranto a matter of right or a discretionary power of the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh vs Senior. Member, Board of Revenue in Balochistan, Quetta And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 362 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Balochistan, Quetta and 2 others1995 MLD 1420 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-30Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Balochistan, Quetta And 2 Other1995 MLD 1420 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-30Read full judgment →
• Jamal Khan And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 482 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-11-12Read full judgment →
• Irfan Trading Co. vs The Collector of Customs & Central ExciseK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 12 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Irfan Trading Co vs The Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Quetta And Another1995 MLD 686 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-09Read full judgment →
• Haji Pir Jan vs Muhammad Yaqoob And 9 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 523 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Shafique vs Government of Pakistan and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 1163 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-07-07Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Sharafatullah vs Federation of Pakistan through SecretaryK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 369 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hafiz Sharafatullah and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1995 CLC 1790 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-03-21
  constitutional petitionaudi alteram partemnatural justicecivil contractagency agreementwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, agents of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation, filed constitutional petitions seeking the restoration of their Extra Departmental Public Call Offices (EDPCO) after the Corporation disconnected their manual telephone services to replace them with Card Pay Phones. The petitioners argued that the disconnection violated the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard (audi alteram partem). The Court examined whether this principle applies to a civil contract where the parties have explicitly agreed to a clause allowing the principal to withdraw the agency at any time without assigning reasons. The Court held that the principle of audi alteram partem cannot be read into a civil contract where it has been expressly excluded by the terms of the agreement. Applying the doctrine of expressum facit cessare tacitum, the Court ruled that the parties' rights are governed strictly by the contract. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked for the enforcement of a civil contract. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as lacking merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to a civil contract where the parties have expressly agreed to a clause allowing termination without assigning reasons?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained for the enforcement of a civil contract?
  • Does the doctrine of expressum facit cessare tacitum preclude the implication of natural justice principles in a contract containing specific termination clauses?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Balochistan vs Ghulam MohammadK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 136 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider Badini and 520 others vs Government of Pakistan1995 CLC 1027 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-09
  Constitutional petitionWrit jurisdictionEquality before lawDiscriminatory classificationService benefitsTerritorial jurisdictionFundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition was filed by employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV) stationed in Quetta, challenging the discriminatory denial of a 20% Secretariat/Personal Allowance granted to their counterparts in Islamabad. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution over a federal corporation headquartered outside its territorial limits, and whether the denial of the allowance to employees performing identical duties constituted unconstitutional discrimination. The Court held that the denial was arbitrary, discriminatory, and lacked a rational basis, violating the fundamental right to equality. It affirmed its jurisdiction, ruling that a federal entity performing functions within a province is amenable to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction regardless of its headquarters' location. The Court established that while classification is permissible, it must be reasonable, rational, and based on substantial differences rather than arbitrary distinctions. Consequently, the Court directed that the allowance be extended to the petitioners with retrospective effect, emphasizing that all similarly situated persons must be treated equally in terms of privileges and benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to issue a writ against a federal corporation headquartered outside its territorial limits if that corporation performs functions within the province?
  • Is the denial of a specific allowance to employees performing identical duties based solely on their geographic location a violation of the constitutional right to equality?
  • What are the criteria for a valid classification of employees for the purpose of granting different service benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 417 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-12-26Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad and others vs The State and others1995 MLD 1088 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-12-26Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad And Others vs The State And Another1995 MLD 1088 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-12-26Read full judgment →
• Dr. Masood Ahmed and 3 others vs Government of Balochistan1995 PLC (C.S.) 586 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-07-17Read full judgment →
• Chutta And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 316 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• Chutta and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 755 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-10-31
  murdercommon intentionocular testimonybenefit of the doubtimposition of finepenal statute strict constructioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Usta Muhammad, whereby the appellants Chutta, Acher, and Ghulam Haider were convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Nouroz and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness and police testimonies, the applicability of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the legality of imposing a fine under Section 302 following the promulgation of the Qisas and Diyat laws. The Balochistan High Court held that the ocular testimony of the complainant, corroborated by medical evidence and recoveries, sufficiently established the guilt of Chutta and Ghulam Haider, whose appeals were dismissed. However, the prosecution failed to prove a pre-arranged plan or common intention as to Acher, who was granted the benefit of the doubt and acquitted. Furthermore, the court held that since Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 no longer provides for a sentence of fine, the imposition of a fine was unlawful and set aside. The key principle laid down is that penal statutes must be construed strictly, and no penalty or fine can be imposed by implication if omitted from the substantive penal provision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated statement of an eyewitness can form the basis of a murder conviction when it remains unshattered during cross-examination?
  • Can joint liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained in the absence of proof of a pre-arranged plan or common intention?
  • Does Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 empower the court to impose a sentence of fine after the promulgation of the Qisas and Diyat amendments?
  • How should penal statutes be construed regarding the imposition of penalties and fines not expressly provided in the text?
  Read full judgment →
• Central Trading (Privae) Limited vs Chairman, Town Committee, Uthal1995 CLC 1809 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
• Assistant Collector Customs (Preventive) Collectorate of Customs1995 P Cr. L J 581 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-23Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases I6 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1094 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
• Adeeb Javedani, Printer and Publisher, Moon Digest, Lahore vs Yahya1995 CLC 1246 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-25
  defamationdamageslibelrevision petitionfair commentjournalistic ethics
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenged concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a suit for recovery of damages for defamation, filed by a senior advocate and former Attorney-General against the printer and publisher of a digest, was decreed. The core legal question concerned whether the publication of an article based on an allegedly false interview, which impugned the professional reputation and integrity of the plaintiff, constituted actionable defamation, and whether the defense of fair comment in public interest was available to the publisher. The Balochistan High Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were free from legal infirmity, ruling that the publisher failed to substantiate the truth of the interview, refused to publish a denial or tender an apology, and employed harsh language that caused demonstrable injury to the plaintiff's reputation. The court laid down that editors must exercise reasonable diligence to verify information before publishing defamatory attacks, and that a publisher of defamatory material is equally liable as the author.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the concurrent findings of lower courts in a defamation suit can be interfered with under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the publication of an unverified interview containing harmful imputations against a person's professional reputation constitute actionable defamation?
  • Is a publisher of defamatory material equally liable along with the original author of the imputation?
  • Whether proof of actual quantified financial loss is a mandatory pre-requisite for awarding damages in a suit for defamation?
  Read full judgment →
• Adeeb Javedani vs Yahya BahtiarK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 442 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-25Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzak vs Muhammad Qasim And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 324 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Hashim vs Principal, Bolan Medical College Quetta and 21995 CLC 1233 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khan and 2 others vs The State and another1995 PLD Quetta 12 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-07-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs Shamim Akhtar And Another1995 MLD 1104 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haque vs The State1995 KLR Criminal Cares 435 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghias vs Syed Haji Tat Muhammad and 42 others1995 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-09-19
  pre-emptionTalb-e-MawasbatTalb-e-IshhadTalb-e-TamleeqShuffacivil appeallimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was directed against the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Quetta, which dismissed the appellant's suit for possession through pre-emption. The appellant claimed a right of pre-emption over the suit land as a co-sharer (Shareek-e-Khatta) and asserted that he had made the necessary demands (Talb-e-Mawasbat and Talb-e-Ishhad) upon learning of the sale. The respondents contested the suit, arguing that the appellant failed to prove the requisite demands. The High Court observed that the right of pre-emption is a feeble right requiring strict compliance with formalities. The Court noted that the appellant filed the suit after a delay of one year and failed to establish the exact timing of his knowledge of the sale. Crucially, the witnesses did not depose that the appellant, while making the second demand (Talb-e-Ishhad), had expressly referred to the first demand (Talb-e-Mawasbat). Consequently, the High Court held that the indispensable conditions for pre-emption were not met and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a pre-emptor to expressly refer to the first demand (Talb-e-Mawasbat) while making the second demand (Talb-e-Ishhad) is fatal to a suit for pre-emption?
  • What is the legal effect of a delay of one year in filing a pre-emption suit where the pre-emptor fails to prove the exact date of obtaining knowledge of the sale?
  • Are the demands of Talb-e-Mawasbat and Talb-e-Ishhad indispensable conditions precedent for the successful exercise of the right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghias vs (Syed) Haji Taj Muhammad And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 5 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-09-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Selection Committee through Director of Education1997 KLR Labour and Services Cases 192 · Balochistan High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Malik vs Government of Balochistan through ChiefK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 110 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Syed) Zainuddin And Other vs Assistant Commissioner And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 104 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
• (Syed) Tahir Hussain Mehmoodi vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 395 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-09-01Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Aamna Bibi vs Kashif-Ur-Rehman And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 127 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-03Read full judgment →
• (Dr.) Khalida Malik And 2 Other vs (Mst.) Farida Malik And 7 OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 224 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →
• (Dr.) Haq Nawaz vs Balochistan Public Service Commission through Its Chairman, And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Labure & Service Cases 175 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zarqa Haq vs Government of Balochistan Through Secretary, Health, Quetta And 2 Other1994 PLD Quetta 47 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-07
  educational admissionmedical college admissionprospectus interpretationsupplementary examinationconstitutional petitionadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the decision of the Selection Committee of Bolan Medical College, which denied the petitioner admission to the first-year M.B.,B.S. program on the sole ground that she passed her F.Sc. (Pre-Medical) examination in a supplementary session rather than an annual session. The core legal question was whether the college prospectus permitted the exclusion of students who qualified in supplementary sessions from competing for admission alongside those who passed in annual sessions. The Court held that the prospectus, which serves as the governing document for admissions in the absence of specific statutory rules, did not create any distinction between students based on whether they passed the requisite examination in an annual or supplementary session. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Selection Committee acted without authority in imposing such a restriction. The key principle laid down is that educational institutions must strictly adhere to the terms of their prospectuses, which must be interpreted according to their plain language without reading in extraneous conditions or creating arbitrary classifications not explicitly provided for in the governing document.

  Questions settled

  • Can a medical college admission committee deny admission to a candidate solely because they passed their qualifying examination in a supplementary session?
  • Does a college prospectus constitute a binding document that regulates admissions in the absence of specific statutory rules?
  • Should a court decide on grounds for disqualification that were not initially considered by the administrative body in their impugned order?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mohammad IbrahimK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 486 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-03-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Haq Nawaz vs Mst. Sakina And 9 Other1994 PLD Quetta 84 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-05-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Din Muhammad vs Mst. Amina Bibi And 7 Other1994 PLD Quetta 42 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-09Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Shafi And 24 Other vs Price Control Board Through Chairman And Another1994 PLD Quetta 101 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-05-11
  price controlpoultry pricesprofiteering and hoardingdistrict magistrate powersdiscretionary reliefconstitutional petitionpublic interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court by dealers of poultry, eggs, and fish challenging the price fixation orders issued by the local administration and District Price Committee. The core legal questions involved whether the local administration and District Magistrate were legally empowered to fix prices of essential commodities under the law, and whether dealers could whimsically increase prices without checks under the guise of market fluctuations. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the local administration, alongside the District Magistrate who enjoys inherent powers and authority under the relevant statutory framework, acted lawfully in the public interest to regulate prices and curb arbitrary price hikes. The ratio decidendi established that the state has a constitutional and moral obligation to ensure essential goods are supplied at moderate rates, and discretionary constitutional relief under Article 199 will be denied to petitioners whose conduct seeks unbridled price escalation or unjust enrichment to the detriment of the general public.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the District Magistrate and local administration are empowered to fix and regulate prices of essential food items to prevent arbitrary price hikes by dealers?
  • Can commodity dealers claim an unbridled right to vary market prices whimsically without prior notice or regard for public welfare?
  • Whether High Courts can decline discretionary constitutional relief under Article 199 when a petition aims to promote undue gains or exploitation of the general public?
  • Does the District Magistrate possess inherent powers to check unreasonable or arbitrary increases in commodity rates to protect consumers?
  Read full judgment →