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.

• Gul Muhammad vs Shanzak and 2 Others1984 P Cr. L J 790 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustaffa vs Family Judge/Qazi, Kharan and Another1984 PLD Quetta 43 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-08-29Read full judgment →
• Bakhtiar and 3 Others vs Member III, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan, Quetta and 20 Others1984 PLD Quetta 158 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-03-21
  Revenue record mutationLand Revenue Act 1967Revisional jurisdictionVoid mutationConstitutional petitionBoard of RevenueNotice requirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Member, Board of Revenue, which reversed mutation entries in the revenue record that had been made in favor of the petitioners. The petitioners had obtained these entries following the dismissal of a civil suit for partition, claiming this dismissal granted them rights. The core legal questions were whether a dismissed civil suit confers rights justifying revenue record alteration, whether mutations made without notice to affected co-sharers are valid, and whether the Board of Revenue possesses the jurisdiction to entertain a second revision to correct such illegalities. The Court held that the Board of Revenue’s order was correct, ruling that the petitioners’ mutation entries were void as they were made in flagrant violation of the mandatory notice requirements under the Land Revenue Act, 1967. The Court established that revenue officers cannot vary entries without proper legal basis or notice to interested parties. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Board of Revenue has broad revisional powers under the Land Revenue Act, 1967, to intervene at any time to rectify patent illegalities and prevent the perpetuation of void orders.

  Questions settled

  • Does a dismissed civil suit for partition confer rights upon a party to alter revenue record entries?
  • Are mutation entries made without notice to the affected co-sharers void in law?
  • Is the Board of Revenue competent to entertain a second revision under the Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  • Can the Board of Revenue exercise its revisional jurisdiction to correct illegalities even after a significant lapse of time?
  Read full judgment →
• Babu Muhammad Rafiq vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Baluchistan1984 PLD Quetta 80 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-11-16Read full judgment →
• Azizurrehman vs Abdur Rahim1984 PLD Quetta 46 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-09-09Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmad vs Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Quetta1984 PLD Quetta 106 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
• Amir Khan vs Malik Sher Jan and Another1984 PLD Quetta 146 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
• Agha Muhammad vs Superintendent of Police, Sibi and 2 Others1984 PLD Quetta 68 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-11-27Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Haji Abdul Hamid1983 PLD Quetta 49 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-09-23Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 402 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar and Another vs Province of Baluchistan through Secretary, Revenue Deptt., Quetta and 4 Others1984 PLD Quetta 24 · Balochistan High Court
  land acquisitionpublic purposeconstitutional petitionlacheswrit jurisdictionprocedural irregularitycompensationlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government of Baluchistan for the establishment of a cement factory by a private company. The petitioners, claiming to be allottees of plots within the acquired land, contested the validity of notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alleging procedural irregularities, lack of public purpose, and failure to serve notice. The Court held that the acquisition was valid, noting that "public purpose" is an elastic concept encompassing industrial projects that benefit the community. The Court ruled that technical omissions in notifications, such as the failure to explicitly name the company, do not invalidate proceedings absent prejudice. Furthermore, the Court determined that non-compliance with notice requirements under section 9 does not vitiate the acquisition itself but merely affects compensation, which is remediable through statutory reference. Finally, the Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to enforce private contractual obligations between allottees and housing societies, and dismissed the petition on grounds of laches, as the proceedings had already been finalized and possession handed over.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of a company's name in a land acquisition notification invalidate the entire acquisition proceeding?
  • Is the establishment of a private cement factory considered a 'public purpose' under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Does non-compliance with notice requirements under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 vitiate the acquisition proceedings?
  • Can a petitioner invoke writ jurisdiction to enforce private contractual obligations regarding land allotment against a housing society?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz and 18 Others vs Muhammad Hassan and Others1984 PLD Quetta 101 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
• A Rbab Abdul Qadir vs Mst. Bibi Fatima and Another1984 CLC 546 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-12-06
  arbitration proceedingsfunctus officiotemporary injunctionpartition suitcompetency of appealinterim orderssubject-matter of reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Senior Civil Judge Quetta restraining the appellant from raising construction over a disputed plot during the pendency of a partition suit. During the suit, the parties referred the dispute to arbitration, and the trial court issued a temporary injunction under section 41(b) of the Arbitration Act. The core legal questions involved whether a civil court retains jurisdiction to issue injunctions after a reference to arbitration and whether an appeal is competent against such an order under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Balochistan High Court held that once a matter is referred to arbitration, the court becomes functus officio regarding the main suit under section 23(2) of the Arbitration Act, but retains limited power under section 41(b) and the Second Schedule to pass interim orders for the preservation or protection of the property. The Court further held that no appeal lies against such an interim order since it is not specified under section 39 of the Arbitration Act. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court become functus officio upon the reference of a dispute to arbitration in a pending suit?
  • Can a civil court issue a temporary injunction or interim order after a matter has been referred to arbitration?
  • Is an appeal competent under section 104 and Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an interim order passed under section 41 of the Arbitration Act?
  • What orders are appealable under section 39 of the Arbitration Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Atta Abbas and Another vs District Magistrate, Kohlu1983 PLD Quetta 68 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
• Suleman Haji and Another vs The State and 2 Others1983 PLD Quetta 84 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad Rafique and Another1983 PLD Quetta 122 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-07-15
  appeal against acquittalpower to acquit at initial stagegroundless chargeabuse of process of lawdouble presumption of innocenceanti-corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order of acquittal passed by the Senior Special Judge, Baluchistan at Mastung in favor of the respondents, who were charged along with others under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1947. The core legal questions involved the legality of acquitting an accused at an initial stage under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without framing a charge or recording evidence, and whether the prosecution established a prima facie case. The Balochistan High Court held that a trial court possesses statutory powers under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused at any stage if the charge is groundless, irrespective of whether a charge has been framed or witnesses examined. The Court laid down that appellate courts will not interfere with an acquittal unless the State conclusively shows clear error and irresistible inference of guilt, and reaffirmed that courts must prevent the abuse of process and harassment of citizens through groundless prosecutions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before framing a charge or recording any evidence?
  • What are the established principles for a superior court to follow when considering an appeal against an order of acquittal?
  • Does section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 give statutory recognition to powers previously exercised under section 561-A?
  • When is it appropriate for a criminal court to interfere at the initial stage of a trial to prevent an illegal prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmed and 5 Others vs Anjumaneislamia Baluchistan and Another1983 PLD Quetta 92 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-04-18
  temporary injunctionstatus quoirreparable lossbalance of conveniencerevisional jurisdictionsublettingequitable relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of an order refusing a temporary injunction in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and possession concerning a commercial shop. The core legal question is whether the sealing of a disputed shop falls within the scope of temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the petitioners satisfied the prerequisites for equitable relief. The Balochistan High Court held that sealing the shop did not maintain the status quo but created a new situation, and that the loss claimed by the petitioners was easily measurable in monetary terms and thus not irreparable. The court laid down the principle that temporary injunctions are equitable reliefs requiring the co-existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, and that a plaintiff who has violated principles of equity by subletting premises without consent cannot invoke discretionary injunctive relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order to seal a disputed property during the pendency of a suit constitute a proper exercise of power under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can financial loss that is easily measurable in terms of money be categorized as irreparable loss for the purpose of granting a temporary injunction?
  • Does the High Court interfere in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the appellate court's discretion on an injunction matter is neither arbitrary nor fanciful?
  • Must all three conditions—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss—co-exist before a temporary injunction can be granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Sallem vs Selection Committee, Bolan Medical College, Academic1983 CLC 1862 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-08-07Read full judgment →
• Quetta Club Ltd., Quetta Cantt. through Its Administrator vs Muslim1983 PLD Quetta 46 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-12-15
  payment of wagesex parte proceedingsmandatory depositconstitutional jurisdictionreview powerslabour courtgratuity
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1934, and the Labour Court, which ruled against the petitioner, Quetta Club, regarding a wage claim. The petitioner contended that the ex parte proceedings were unjustified and that the appellate court erred in dismissing its appeal for failing to provide a deposit certificate. The Court held that the ex parte order was valid, as the petitioner failed to appear despite multiple opportunities, and the authority’s refusal to recall the order was not an error of jurisdiction. Regarding the appeal, the Court affirmed that the proviso to Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1934, is mandatory; thus, an appeal filed without the required deposit certificate is incompetent. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Labour Courts lack inherent review powers unless explicitly conferred by statute, and that disputed questions of fact, such as entitlement to gratuity, cannot be raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, emphasizing that constitutional jurisdiction is not an appellate forum to re-examine factual findings.

  Questions settled

  • Is the proviso to Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1934, requiring a deposit certificate for an appeal, mandatory or directory?
  • Do Labour Courts possess inherent powers of review in the absence of specific statutory authorization?
  • Can disputed questions of fact, not raised before the lower authority, be adjudicated for the first time in constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • Does the failure to appear before an authority after being granted multiple opportunities justify proceeding ex parte?
  Read full judgment →
• Qambar Ali vs Mst. Khiraj Begum1983 PLD Quetta 17 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-08-27
  evictiontenantestoppellandlord-tenant relationshipbona fide reconstructionattornmentrent controlevacuee property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller against a tenant occupying a khokha. The appellant challenged the eviction, contending that the property was evacuee property, thereby questioning the Rent Controller's jurisdiction and the landlady's title. The core legal question was whether a tenant, having attorned to the landlord and paid rent, is estopped from challenging the landlord's title or the property's status. The Court held that the appeal lacked merit. Applying the doctrine of estoppel as codified in Section 116 of the Evidence Act, the Court ruled that a tenant who has accepted the landlord and paid rent cannot subsequently deny the landlord's title or challenge the property's status during the continuance of the tenancy. Additionally, the Court upheld the finding that the landlady’s requirement for the premises for bona fide reconstruction was established and remained uncontroverted by the appellant. Consequently, the eviction order was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs, granting the appellant a two-month period to vacate the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant challenge the title of their landlord during the continuance of the tenancy?
  • Does the doctrine of estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1872 prevent a tenant from questioning the status of the property as evacuee property?
  • Is a tenant estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller after having accepted the landlord and paid rent?
  • What constitutes sufficient proof for a landlord's claim of bona fide reconstruction in eviction proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Baluchistan vs Ismail and Others1983 PLD Quetta 8 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-09-17Read full judgment →
• Nadir Khan vs Selection Committee for Engineering Colleges through Chairman, Publice Service Commission, Quetta and 2 Others1983 PLD Quetta 102 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Begum and 4 Others vs Shahbuddin and Another1983 PLD Quetta 110 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-05-22Read full judgment →
• Mohkamuddin vs Mehraban and 8 Others1983 PLD Quetta 42 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
• Mir Rehman Khan and ANOTHERss vs Sardar Asadullah Khan and 141983 PLD Quetta 52 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-08-30
  declaratory suitcivil court jurisdictionrevenue recordsspecial tribunaldefinition of courtland revenuespecific relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision matter addresses whether a suit for declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 is triable by a normal civil court or by a tribunal under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968, and whether section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 bars such a suit. The petitioners challenged revenue mutations regarding agricultural land belonging to their late father. The Senior Civil Judge dismissed the suit holding it barred by section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. On appeal, the District Judge held the suit maintainable but ordered the return of the plaint to be presented before the Deputy Commissioner under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968. The Balochistan High Court held that section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 does not bar a civil suit challenging revenue actions, as section 53 of the same Act expressly allows approaching civil courts under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Furthermore, the Court held that tribunals under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968 are not 'Courts' in strict legal parlance since they are not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Evidence Act. Consequently, suits for declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 must be tried by regular civil courts of law rather than tribunals under the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 bar a civil suit challenging the actions of revenue authorities?
  • Whether a tribunal constituted under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968 qualifies as a 'Court' under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Are suits involving the declaration of status, right, title, or interest triable by ordinary civil courts or by special tribunals under Ordinance I of 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mahmood Ahmad & SONSs vs M. A. Marker1983 PLD Quetta 36 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-11-02
  evictionrent controllerdefault in rentpayment by chequefresh tenancyestoppellandlord-tenant relationship
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller against a tenant for alleged non-payment of rent. The core legal questions were whether the tenant committed default under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 by paying rent directly to the landlord instead of the Court and by using cheques, and whether a subsequent agreement to enhance rent rendered the eviction application infructuous. The Court held that where a landlord consents to direct payment and accepts cheques without objection, the tenant is not in default, as the landlord is estopped from challenging the mode of payment. Furthermore, the Court determined that the parties' mutual agreement to enhance the rent created a fresh tenancy, which superseded the original cause of action. Consequently, the eviction application was no longer maintainable. The key principles laid down are that direct payment to a landlord with their consent constitutes valid compliance with a rent deposit order, payment by cheque is valid if accepted without objection, and a fresh tenancy agreement between parties renders an existing eviction application infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant be held in default for paying rent directly to the landlord if the landlord previously consented to this arrangement?
  • Is payment of rent by cheque considered a valid tender in compliance with a Rent Controller's order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Does a mutual agreement between a landlord and tenant to enhance rent create a fresh tenancy that renders a pending eviction application infructuous?
  • Can a landlord who accepts rent payments through cheques without objection later claim that such payments are invalid?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Khanan vs Malik Baz Muhammad Khan and 2 Others1983 PLD Quetta 30 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-09-26
  locus standiconstitutional petitionrepresentative capacityaggrieved partywrit jurisdictiontribal chiefCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, acting as Chief of the Shamamzai-Kibzai Tribe, challenged an administrative order concerning boundary pillars on disputed lands, seeking to maintain the petition in a representative capacity under Order I, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal questions were whether a Constitutional petition can be filed in a representative capacity and whether the petitioner possessed the requisite locus standi as an "aggrieved party" under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any direct, personal interest in the subject property, such as ownership or possession of huts or grazing grounds. The Court established that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court requires a petitioner to show a direct, personal injury or interest to qualify as an "aggrieved party." Consequently, the Court ruled that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding representative suits are inapplicable to Constitutional petitions where the petitioner lacks personal standing, and a tribal chief cannot invoke writ jurisdiction solely based on their representative status.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Constitutional petition be filed in a representative capacity under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a tribal chief have locus standi to file a writ petition on behalf of a tribe without demonstrating a direct personal interest in the subject matter?
  • Is a tribe or a 'body politic' considered an 'aggrieved party' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmad vs Muhammad Aslam Khan1983 PLD Quetta 81 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-03-23Read full judgment →
• Lubna Hafeez vs Selection Committee for Admission to Bolan Medical1983 CLC 1788 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-08-08Read full judgment →
• JURNAlL Sing vs The Superintendent, Central Jail, Mach and Another1983 PLD Quetta 97 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
• Hari Kishan Dass vs Chairman, WAPDA1983 PLD Quetta 61 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-09-12
  WAPDAcivil servanttermination of serviceLabour Court jurisdictionService Tribunalconstitutional petitionlaches
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses 18 consolidated constitutional petitions filed by employees of WAPDA whose services were terminated under section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners were workmen entitled to approach the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, or civil servants who should have approached the Service Tribunal, and whether constitutional petitions were competent against termination orders passed under section 17(1-A). The Balochistan High Court held that pursuant to section 17(1-B) of the West Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958, WAPDA employees are deemed to be civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of Labour Courts. However, because section 17(1-A) confers arbitrary and unchallengeable authority upon the Authority to terminate service without assigning reasons, orders passed thereunder are not justiciable before the Service Tribunal either. Furthermore, the petitions were held to be barred by laches. The key principle laid down is that WAPDA employees are deemed civil servants under section 17(1-B) of the West Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958, but where termination is executed under the summary powers of section 17(1-A), neither the Labour Court nor the Service Tribunal possesses jurisdiction to interfere.

  Questions settled

  • Whether WAPDA employees are deemed to be civil servants for the purpose of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to entertain grievances of WAPDA employees under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can an order of termination passed by WAPDA under section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958, be challenged before the Service Tribunal?
  • Are constitutional petitions barred when an alternate remedy before the Service Tribunal exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Mir Khan and Another vs Abdul Karim and 2 Others1983 PLD Quetta 118 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-03-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Ayub vs Mst. Bachai and Another1983 PLD Quetta 114 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
• DR. Munir Ahmed, M.B., B.S., Medical Officer vs Chairman, House1983 CLC 1783 · Balochistan High Court
  government accommodationtemporary injunctionunauthorized occupanttenancy at willcivil court jurisdictionrecovery of possessionallotment rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an appellate court order that set aside a trial court's grant of a temporary injunction, which had restrained the government from evicting the petitioner's family from a government bungalow. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner, a government servant, had a legal right to retain government accommodation originally allotted to his retired father, and whether civil courts are barred from granting injunctions against the government in matters concerning the recovery of possession of government property. The Court held that the petitioner had no legal entitlement to the bungalow, as he was not the allottee and was not posted in the relevant district. Furthermore, the Court held that under the West Pakistan Government Land and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1966, civil courts are expressly barred from granting injunctions against the government for the recovery of possession of government premises. The key principles laid down are that an unauthorized occupant cannot claim injunctive relief to perpetuate illegal possession, and that government accommodation constitutes a tenancy at will, terminable by the government at any time.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court grant a temporary injunction restraining the government from taking possession of government property under the West Pakistan Government Land and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1966?
  • Does a government servant have a vested right to retain government accommodation allotted to a family member after that member retires?
  • Is the occupation of government premises by a government servant, in the absence of a valid allotment, a tenancy at will terminable by the government?
  • Can an unauthorized occupant of government property obtain an injunction to prevent eviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Dada Steel Mills vs Baluchistan Government and Another1983 CLC 571 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-04-29
  constitutional petitionland revenueship breaking industryspecial assessmentbarren land exemptionretrospective taxationrefund of illegal recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged a notification issued by the Revenue Department of the Government of Baluchistan enhancing ground rent and royalty on ship-breaking activity, along with a claim for refund of amounts paid under protest. The core legal questions involved whether the government had proprietary interest in the land to levy land revenue or special assessment, whether barren land was exempt from land revenue, and whether the High Court could order a refund of illegally recovered amounts in writ jurisdiction. The Balochistan High Court held that the land in question was privately owned rather than government-owned, that waste and barren land was exempt from land revenue under the relevant statutory provisions, and that the retrospective notification was without lawful authority. The Court established the principle that the government cannot levy land revenue, special assessment, or royalties on privately owned barren land, and that the High Court may order the refund of illegally recovered taxes under constitutional jurisdiction to prevent multiplicity of litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the government can levy land revenue or special assessment under section 70 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 on land that is privately owned and not granted by the government?
  • Is waste and barren land exempt from the payment of land revenue under section 56 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967?
  • Whether a retrospective notification enhancing tonnage charges or ground rent can be sustained without statutory backing or curative legal provisions?
  • Can the High Court direct the refund of an amount illegally recovered by the government in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Collector, Quetta Subdivision vs Sardar Qasim and 3 Others1983 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-08-09Read full judgment →
• Bawa Isardas Chela of Kishindas vs Kishindas and Another1983 PLD Quetta 100 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
• Arbab Muhammad Hashim vs State through District Magistrate, Lasbella and Another1983 PLD Quetta 11 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-08-28Read full judgment →
• All JANConvict vs The State1983 PLD Quetta 78 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf and Another vs The State and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 19 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-10-11
  Customs Actmandatory noticevitiation of trialburden of proofsmuggled goodscriminal revisiondue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the conviction of the petitioners, a bus driver and conductor, for the possession of contraband goods under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question was whether the failure to serve a mandatory notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, upon the accused vitiated the entire trial. The Court held that the requirement of notice under Section 171 is mandatory and not merely a procedural irregularity curable under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that the burden of proof regarding the nature of goods only shifts to the accused upon service of such notice; therefore, its absence constitutes a fundamental illegality that violates the constitutional guarantee of trial in accordance with law. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and appellate orders, granting the petitioners liberty while allowing Customs authorities the discretion to reinitiate proceedings following proper compliance with the statutory notice requirements. The judgment establishes that non-compliance with Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, is an illegality that vitiates the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is the service of notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, mandatory for a valid trial?
  • Does the failure to serve notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, constitute a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of a mandatory notice under the Customs Act, 1969, violate the constitutional guarantee of trial in accordance with law?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafiz Khan and Another vs Deputy Commissioner, Khuzdar and 41983 PLD Quetta 20 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
• Wajdad and 2 Other vs Mir Muhammad Baluch and Another1982 PLD Quetta 41 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-10-31
  res judicatawrit jurisdictionconstitutional petitionlachesadministrative lawsuccessive petitionssuo motu revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, concerning a dispute over the 'Sarishta' (office/rights) of Korjo Mahnaz. The petitioners sought to set aside previous administrative orders, alleging lack of jurisdiction and absence of notice. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could initiate successive constitutional petitions on the same cause of action and whether the principle of res judicata applied to writ jurisdiction. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, affirming that the principle of res judicata applies to constitutional petitions to prevent the re-litigation of issues previously decided or that could have been raised in earlier proceedings. The Court further observed that the petitioners had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Member, Board of Revenue and were guilty of laches and negligence in pursuing their remedies. The key principle laid down is that successive writ petitions on the same cause of action are barred, and parties cannot re-agitate matters that were or should have been challenged in prior litigation, as finality must attach to judicial decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to constitutional petitions?
  • Can a party file successive writ petitions on the same cause of action?
  • Does a party's submission to the jurisdiction of a tribunal preclude them from later challenging that jurisdiction?
  • Is delay and negligence in pursuing legal remedies a ground for dismissing a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ibrahim-Tenant vs DR. MRS. Saleema Firdause1982 PLD Quetta 49 · Balochistan High Court · -
  bona fide personal useejectmentlandlord and tenantprivate practiceburden of proofattorney as witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by a landlord against her tenant seeking possession of a commercial shop on grounds of non-payment of rent, subletting, and bona fide personal use for opening a medical clinic. While the Rent Controller decided the issues of rent and subletting against the landlord, the plea of bona fide personal use was accepted and ejectment was ordered. The appellant-tenant challenged this decision, arguing that the evidence regarding personal need was hearsay, that the landlord herself did not testify, and that the relevant rent restriction statute did not cater to the requirements of a husband. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the cumulative effect of the unassailed evidence established the landlord's genuine requirement, that an attorney's testimony on behalf of the landlord is legally sufficient, and that the statutory expression for personal occupation is to be liberally construed to include family needs, including that of a husband. The Court affirmed the ejectment order while granting the tenant four months to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an attorney is sufficient to prove a landlord's bona fide personal use without the landlord entering the witness box?
  • Does the expression 'for his own occupation' in rent restriction laws include the family needs or the requirements of a husband?
  • What is the standard and nature of evidence required to prove the factum of bona fide personal use of a rented premises?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs K. A. Marker and Another1982 PLD Quetta 94 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shershah Industries Ltd., Karachi Petitioner vs Government of Baluchistan and 4 Other1982 PLD Quetta 19 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-07-15Read full judgment →
• Shahid Coal Agency vs The Chairman (Now General Manager), Pakistan Railways and Anoiher1982 PLD Quetta 134 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-08-08
  revision petitiontemporary injunctionlicencespecific reliefunauthorised occupationrailway administrationdispossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the District Judge, Sibi, which rejected the petitioner's application for an interim injunction in a suit for declaration and injunction against the Pakistan Railways. The petitioner, a licensee whose agreement to stock coal on railway plots was cancelled, sought to restrain the railway administration from dispossessing them. The core legal question was whether a licensee whose licence has been terminated can maintain an action for an injunction to prevent dispossession, and whether a temporary injunction should be granted to protect unauthorised occupation. The High Court held that a licence is revocable at the will of the grantor and does not create a tenancy or a right capable of specific enforcement, operating as a bar under the Specific Relief Act to the grant of an injunction. The Court laid down the principle that the principles governing temporary injunctions follow those of permanent injunctions, and an injunction will not be issued in favour of a trespasser to protect unauthorised occupation or perpetuate ill-gotten gains.

  Questions settled

  • Does a licence to use railway land create a tenancy or a right in favour of the licensee that entitles them to claim a declaration and injunction upon termination?
  • Can an injunction be granted to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which cannot be specifically enforced under the Specific Relief Act?
  • Is a temporary injunction to be granted merely because the main suit would otherwise become infructuous?
  • Whether an injunction should be issued in favour of a trespasser whose occupation of the land has become unauthorised?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifuddin vs Chamber of Commerce, Baluchistan and 2 OtherPLD 1982. Quetta 136 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
• S. B. Khan vs Member II, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan and 3Other1982 PLD Quetta 35 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-10-19Read full judgment →
• Rabbani and Another vs Syed Abdul Wali and Others1982 CLC 2005 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-08-07Read full judgment →
• Rabbani and Another vs Syed Abdul Wali and Other1982 CLC 2005 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-08-04Read full judgment →
• Province of Baluchistan and Another vs Malik Haji Gul Hassan1982 PLD Quetta 52 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-12-13
  arbitration awardmisconduct of arbitratorrule of the courtinterest on awardextension of time for court feemodification of awardcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from arbitration proceedings regarding monetary claims under a public works contract. Following earlier incomplete arbitration and subsequent executive settlement, the parties referred the remaining items of dispute to a sole arbitrator. The arbitrator awarded compensation including protection charges and interest. The Senior Civil Judge modified the award by striking down the interest component for lack of statutory authority in the arbitrator and made the modified award a rule of the Court, prompting the provincial government's appeal. The High Court considered whether the arbitrator committed misconduct by failing to record written evidence, referring to prior expert reports, or awarding protection charges and interest, and whether the Court could award interest post-decree under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act. The High Court affirmed the judgment, holding that an arbitrator is not bound by judicial procedure, non-recording of oral evidence does not constitute misconduct, and protection charges were inherently linked to contractual payments. Modifying the decree, the High Court awarded six percent per annum simple interest from the date of the decree pursuant to Section 29 of the Arbitration Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does an arbitrator commit legal misconduct by failing to reduce oral evidence into writing during arbitration proceedings?
  • Does an arbitrator misconduct proceedings by examining prior unverified reports or discarded awards when deciding a dispute on the evidence led by the parties?
  • Can a court modify an arbitration award by striking down an invalid interest component and instead grant interest from the date of the decree under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation (Collieries Ltd.) vs Amir1982 PLD Quetta 87 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-05-17
  Group InsuranceLabour Court jurisdictionlimitation periodStanding Orders OrdinanceWorkmen's Compensation ActIndustrial Relations Ordinancestatutory rulesconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from an order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal setting aside a Labour Court's dismissal of a claim for Group Insurance filed by an employee's heir. The core legal questions involve whether the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applies to establishments with statutory service rules under the control of the Federal or Provincial Government, and whether the limitation period and procedure under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 govern Group Insurance claims before the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The High Court held that the Standing Orders Ordinance does not apply where statutory service rules govern the employees of an establishment carried on under government authority, and that section 10-B(5) of the Standing Orders Ordinance borrows the Workmen's Compensation Act only for the limited purpose of determining and recovering compensation, rather than importing its limitation periods or ousting the Labour Court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the application was held to be time-barred under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and the Appellate Tribunal's order was declared without jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applies to industrial establishments carried on under the authority of the government where statutory rules of service apply?
  • Does section 10-B(5) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 incorporate the entire provisions and limitation periods of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 into proceedings before the Labour Court?
  • Is an application for the recovery of Group Insurance before the Labour Court subject to the limitation period prescribed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Do special tribunals possess inherent powers beyond the four corners of the statutes creating them?
  Read full judgment →
• Oriental Shipping Co. Ltd. vs M.V. Monte Cristo Panamian Flag Etc.1982 CLC 619 · Balochistan High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs Master Muhammad Sharif And Another1982 PLD Quetta 129 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-09-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs Selection Committee for Engineering Seats Etc.1982 CLC 2383 (2) · Balochistan High Court · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
• Mirza Khan vs Ch. Mohan Dass1982 CLC 2258 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-11-15Read full judgment →
• Meher Gul vs Member, Board of Revenue III, Quetta and 4 Other1982 PLD Quetta 103 · Balochistan High Court
  post-arrest bailjurisdictioncognizancespecial lawpre-trial stageinvestigationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Member, Board of Revenue, granting bail to the respondents in a murder case under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Commissioner and superior revenue authorities have the jurisdiction to grant bail under Section 16 of the Ordinance before taking formal cognizance of the offence under Section 4, or whether the ordinary courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 retain exclusive jurisdiction during the pre-cognizance/investigation stage. The High Court, by majority decision, held that the Ordinance is a special law primarily regulating trials and does not govern pre-trial investigation. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner only assumes jurisdiction upon taking formal cognizance of the offence. Prior to that stage, the ordinary courts retain exclusive jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, including the power to grant bail. The impugned bail order was declared a nullity for lack of jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Deputy Commissioner have the power to grant bail under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968 before taking formal cognizance of the offence?
  • Do ordinary courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 retain exclusive jurisdiction over bail matters during the investigation stage of a scheduled offence?
  • What constitutes 'taking cognizance' by a Deputy Commissioner under Section 4 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968?
  • Can the Member, Board of Revenue, exercise powers under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when dealing with matters under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Maula Bakhsh and Others vs Chairman Federal Land Commission and Another1982 CLC 37 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-12-27Read full judgment →
• Mando Etc. vs Muhammad Umar, Etc1982 CLC 284 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-05-06
  civil revisionamendment of plaintdismissal in defaultrestoration of suitreview applicationprocedural technicalitiesconsequential relief
  Summary & questions settled

  These revision petitions arose from a suit for declaration of tenancy rights filed by the petitioners before the Qazi, Sarawan. The trial court dismissed an application to amend the plaint to include a relief for possession, and subsequently dismissed the suit under Order IX, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 upon refusing an adjournment. A subsequent application for restoration under Order IX, Rule 9 and Order XLVII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was also dismissed as time-barred. The Balochistan High Court held that procedural laws must be interpreted liberally to advance the cause of substantial justice rather than stifling it through technicalities, and that amendments to plaints allowing the inclusion of consequential relief such as possession ought not to be withheld normally unless they prejudice the opposing party. The High Court set aside the impugned orders, accepted both revision petitions, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for expeditious disposal after permitting the amendment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court should refuse an amendment of the plaint seeking to add a prayer for possession in a declaratory suit?
  • Does blind-folded adherence to procedural technicalities justify dismissing a suit where the interests of substantial justice require a decision on merits?
  • Whether the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is barred when an application for review of an order of dismissal of a suit has been filed?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Inayatullah vs Muhammad Faryad and Others1982 CLC 2073 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-11-15Read full judgment →
• Malik Inayatullah vs Muhammad Faryad and Other1982 CLC 2073 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-11-15Read full judgment →
• Khair Muhammad and 2 Other vs Mst. Tahira Bibi and 5 Other1982 PLD Quetta 31 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-10-16Read full judgment →
• Jehangir and 2 Other vs Member, Board of Revenue III, Baluchistan, Quetta and Another1982 PLD Quetta 27 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-06-03Read full judgment →
• In Re: Shalimar General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Not1982 CLC 2137 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-11-13Read full judgment →
• In re: Shalimar General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Not1982 CLC 2137 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-11-13Read full judgment →
• Habibullah Khan Niazi vs Chief Martial Law Administrator of Pakistan1982 PLD Quetta 11 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-12-04
  illegal gratificationsummary military courtsanction for prosecutionmartial law orderpublic servantcriminal misconductconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the conviction of the petitioner, a government servant, by a Summary Military Court under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, section 5(2) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1947, and Martial Law Order 33 (Zone D), for allegedly accepting illegal gratification. The core legal question was whether Martial Law Order 33 (Zone D) created a new, distinct offence regarding illegal gratification or merely duplicated section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby necessitating previous sanction for prosecution under section 6(5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958. The court held that Martial Law Order 33 (Zone D) did not create a new offence, as its constituent acts of commission were identical to those under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, differing only in scope and prescribed punishment. Consequently, the petitioner's trial and conviction without obtaining the mandatory prior sanction from the appropriate Government were rendered without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Martial Law Order 33 (Zone D) creates a new offence or refers to the existing offence under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is prior sanction from the appropriate Government required for the prosecution of a public servant under Martial Law Order 33 (Zone D)?
  • Does a difference in scope and punishment between a Martial Law Order and the Pakistan Penal Code constitute a new penal offence?
  Read full judgment →
• F. B. Patel vs Commissioner of Income Tax, West Pakistan1982 PLD Quetta 98 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
• Fatima Bibi and 7 Other vs Jamilur Rehman1982 PLD Quetta 7 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-10-13
  evictionbona fide personal useminor representationguardian ad litemprocedural irregularityrent restrictionnatural guardian
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an eviction application filed by the respondent against the legal heirs of a deceased tenant, including minors, on grounds of default and personal bona fide use. The primary legal question concerned whether the eviction proceedings were void due to the failure to formally appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor respondents under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, despite them being sued through their mother. The Court held that while the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is not strictly applicable to rent proceedings, fundamental principles regarding the representation of minors apply. However, the Court determined that the failure to formally appoint a guardian is a curable irregularity rather than a fatal defect, provided the minors' interests were effectively represented by their natural guardian (the mother) and no prejudice was caused. Finding that the minors' interests were protected and that the respondent had sufficiently established his bona fide need for the premises, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the eviction order while granting the appellants one month to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Is a decree against a minor a nullity if passed without the formal appointment of a guardian ad litem under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the failure to strictly comply with Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in rent proceedings automatically invalidate the proceedings?
  • Can a minor be effectively represented in rent proceedings by their natural guardian without a formal court order of appointment?
  • Is the testimony of a landlord regarding retirement and personal need for premises sufficient to establish bona fide use in the absence of documentary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Dewan Jairam Dass and Another vs Syed Niamat Ali and 4 Other1982 PLD Quetta 14 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-10-03Read full judgment →
• Azam and Another vs Baz Khan and 5 Other1982 PLD QUETTA 126 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
• Aurang Khan and 3 Other vs Member, Board of Revenue III and 2 Other1982 PLD Quetta 146 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-08-10Read full judgment →
• Aminullah and Another vs The Member, Board of Revenue I1, Baluchistan, Quetta and 4 Other1982 PLD Quetta 73 · Balochistan High Court · 1959-08-21Read full judgment →
• Agha Mahboob Shah vs Baluchistan through the Secretary To Government and Other1982 PLD Quetta 84 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-05-15
  territorial jurisdictionreturn of plaintsuit against governmentcause of actioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from an order returning a plaint for presentation to the proper court regarding a construction contract dispute. The petitioner was awarded a contract for grain godowns at Hub, District Lasbela, which was assigned and executed by the fourth respondent at Hub. After disputes arose, a notice for fresh tenders was issued at Hub, prompting the petitioner to file a suit in Quetta. The trial court and the District Judge ordered the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, holding that the suit should have been instituted within the Khuzdar Civil Division. The core legal question concerned the territorial jurisdiction of courts in suits against the Provincial Government under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that provisions regarding the residence or carrying on business do not apply to the Government in the same manner as natural persons, and thus jurisdiction must be determined solely by the place where the cause of action wholly or in part accrued. The revision petition was dismissed, affirming that the cause of action arose at Hub.

  Questions settled

  • Do the provisions regarding residence or carrying on business in Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the Government?
  • How is territorial jurisdiction determined in a suit filed against a Provincial or Federal Government?
  • Whether the Senior Civil Judge was justified in returning the plaint for presentation to the court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action accrued?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani and Another vs Province of Baluchistan 2 and Other1982 PLD Quetta 63 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-06-09
  land acquisitioncompulsory acquisitionstatutory interpretationnotice requirementslocus standiconstitutional petitionpublic purposecompany acquisition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges land acquisition proceedings initiated by the government for a cement factory, asserting that the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was superseded by the Baluchistan Acquisition of Land (Housing and Development Schemes in the Rural Areas) Act 1974. The core legal questions concern whether the 1894 Act remains applicable in the province and whether the respondents complied with mandatory procedural requirements. The Court held that while the 1894 Act remains valid for purposes outside the scope of the 1974 Act, the current acquisition proceedings were illegal. The holding rests on the finding that the respondents failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements under Section 4 and Section 45 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and failed to execute a necessary agreement under Section 41 for company-purpose acquisitions. The key principle laid down is that mere official Gazette publication is insufficient; the Collector must strictly adhere to Section 45 by serving public notice in the locality, and failure to follow these statutory mandates, including the agreement requirement for company acquisitions, vitiates the entire acquisition process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Baluchistan Acquisition of Land (Housing and Development Schemes in the Rural Areas) Act 1974 impliedly repeal the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Is the publication of an acquisition notification in the official Gazette sufficient to satisfy the notice requirements under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • What are the consequences of failing to execute an agreement under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 when acquiring land for a company?
  • Does the failure to serve public notice in the locality as required by Section 45 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 vitiate acquisition proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Salooka Steels Ltd. vs Director General, Coast Guards of PakistanPLD 1981 Quetta · Balochistan High Court · 1980-08-30Read full judgment →
• Oriental Shipping Co. Ltd., Karachi vs M. V. Monti Cristo and 31981 CLC 748 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-12-20Read full judgment →
• Mullah Ahmed vs Assistant Commissioner, Sibi and 7 Other1981 PLD Quetta 15 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-06-09
  pre-emptionTalabsMuhammadan Lawconstitutional jurisdictionCivil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinanceexchange versus sale
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises out of a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner concerning agricultural land that was mutated as an exchange but claimed by the petitioner to be a sale. The trial under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968 went through various rounds before tribunals, commissioners, and the Board of Revenue, resulting in concurrent findings against the petitioner on the ground that he failed to prove the mandatory making of 'Talabs' under Muhammadan Law. The core legal question involved whether the failure of the contesting respondents to explicitly deny the assertion of 'Talabs' in their written statement dispensed with the requirement of proving the same under procedural law, and whether concurrent factual findings warranted interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The Balochistan High Court held that the fact of making 'Talabs' must be strictly proved with all attending circumstances regardless of pleadings, and that erroneous findings of fact by lower tribunals, unless lacking jurisdiction, do not attract constitutional interference. The court laid down that proof of 'Talabs' in pre-emption cases governed by Muhammadan Law is an indispensable foundational requirement that cannot be bypassed on technical rules of pleadings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to explicitly deny the making of 'Talabs' in a written statement dispenses with the requirement of proving the same under Muhammadan Law?
  • Does the Civil Procedure Code strictly apply to proceedings under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can erroneous findings of fact by tribunals be interfered with under the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Maula Bakhsh and 2 Others vs Chairman Federal Land Commission1981 CLC 694 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Masha Khan vs Selection Committee, Bolan Medical College and 21981 CLC 634 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Habibullah vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways Etc.1981 PLC 605 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-05-09
  industrial relationsgrievance procedurerailway servantdisciplinary actionunauthorized absencequantum of punishmentlabour court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a petition filed under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by a railway employee challenging his reversion and subsequent disciplinary orders. The appellant, a railway mate, admitted to unauthorized absence, leading to disciplinary action without a formal inquiry. The core legal question was whether the appellant's mercy petition to departmental authorities satisfied the mandatory grievance notice procedure required by Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before approaching the Labour Court. The Court held that while the Labour Court erred in strictly interpreting the form of the grievance notice—as no specific format is prescribed by law and a mercy petition can constitute sufficient notice—the appeal lacked merit on factual grounds. The Court affirmed that it cannot interfere with the quantum or nature of a penalty imposed by departmental authorities where the charge was admitted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, establishing that while grievance procedures under the Ordinance are flexible regarding form, they remain a mandatory prerequisite for litigation, and courts will not substitute their discretion for departmental disciplinary decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, prescribe a specific form or method for a worker to bring a grievance to the notice of an employer under Section 25-A?
  • Can a mercy petition or departmental appeal be treated as sufficient compliance with the grievance notice requirement under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Is a Labour Court or appellate court empowered to substitute its own views regarding the quantum or nature of a penalty imposed by departmental authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Siddique vs Selection Committee. Bolan Medical College and Others1981 CLC 725 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Sheerazi vs The State1981 PLD Quetta 18 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-06-27Read full judgment →
• Gharib Shah and 6 Other vs Abdul Sattar1981 PLD Quetta 21 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-06-12Read full judgment →
• Ch. Imdad Ali vs Member Board of Revenue II Cum Sattelment Authority, Balochistan and 5 Other1981 PLD Quetta 9 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-04-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Province of Baluchistan and 3 Others1981 CLC 728 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-10-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Abdul Ghani and Another1981 CLC 735 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-10-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Nadir Shah vs District Magistrate, Pishin and Another1980 PLD Quetta 29 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-12-17
  local certificatenatural justicevested rightconstitutional petitionengineering college admissionpaternity disputewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These connected constitutional petitions challenged the cancellation of a local certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and the consequent refusal of the Selection Committee to grant him a seat in an engineering college. The matter came before the Chief Justice as a reference following a difference of opinion between two learned judges of a Division Bench, where one judge accepted the petitions and the other dismissed them. The core legal questions involved whether the cancellation of the local certificate without prior notice violated principles of natural justice, whether the petitioner held a vested right, and whether the High Court could examine the factual controversy regarding the petitioner's paternity. The Chief Justice agreed with the view that the cancellation of the local certificate without notice and proper inquiry was without lawful authority and of no legal effect, as it adversely affected the petitioner's vested rights. The Court held that natural justice requires a fair hearing before a vested right is taken away, and directed that the petitioner be granted the engineering seat. The key principles laid down relate to the necessity of notice and inquiry prior to the cancellation of local or domicile certificates affecting substantive rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the cancellation of a local certificate without prior notice to the holder violates the principles of natural justice?
  • Does the recipient of a local certificate acquire a vested right that entitles them to a show-cause notice before cancellation?
  • Can the High Court examine disputed questions of fact and paternity in its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • Whether a subsequent notice issued after the cancellation of an order cures the initial defect of failing to provide a pre-decisional hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Munawar Ali vs Mehta W. N. Kohli1980 CLC 1561 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-08-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Hadi Hussain Shah vs Malik Shah and 3 Others1980 PLD Quetta 47 · Balochistan High Court · 1967-07-27Read full judgment →
• Suleman and Another vs President, Special Military Court No, 3, Sibi and 4 Others1980 PLD Quetta 52 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-03-28Read full judgment →
• Sardar Sawal Khan vs Gul Baran Coal Co., Quetta and Another1980 PLD Quetta 55 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-04-14Read full judgment →
• Q Amaruzza M an vs Khair Din and 2 Others1980 CLC 2011 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-10-04Read full judgment →
• Mujeebullah Aijaz vs Directorgeneral, Telephone and Tllegraph1980 PLD Quetta 58 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-05-21
  service tribunalsjurisdiction of high courtconstitutional jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicecivil servantsouster of jurisdictionalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This Full Bench reference before the Balochistan High Court addressed the interpretation of Articles 199 and 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, specifically concerning the extent to which Article 212 bars the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 in service matters of persons in the service of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether Article 212 operates as a total bar against civil servants seeking relief under Article 199 regarding their terms and conditions of service, and what the scope of relief and governing principles are if answered in the negative. The Full Bench held that the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 is not total, but is limited strictly to the sphere occupied by the relevant service statutes, such as the Civil Servants Act 1973 and Service Tribunals Act 1973 (and their provincial equivalents). The court laid down that while matters falling squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunals are barred from judicial review under Article 199, the High Court retains jurisdiction in cases of orders without jurisdiction, coram non judice, or where the impugned matter falls outside the statutory competence of the Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan is a complete bar in respect of cases in which a Government servant seeks relief under Article 199 of the Constitution in relation to his terms and conditions of service?
  • To what extent does Article 212 of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199?
  • Does an order passed without jurisdiction by an Administrative Tribunal attract the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199?
  • In which specific service matters does an appeal fail to lie before the Service Tribunal under the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khadija Bii3i vs Abdul Wahid1980 CLC 2145 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-04-29
  supervisory jurisdictionRent Controllersubordinate courtexpeditious disposalconstitutional petitionlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by a landlady seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of a rent eviction case pending since 1967. The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the High Court lacked supervisory jurisdiction because a Rent Controller is not a 'Court' subordinate to the High Court under Article 203. The High Court examined the constitutional history of supervisory jurisdiction from the Government of India Act 1935 through successive Pakistani Constitutions. It held that subordination is determined by whether a forum's orders are subject to the appellate or revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Applying a liberal and comprehensive interpretation, the Court ruled that a Rent Controller, while not a court in the strict classical sense of the Code of Civil Procedure, qualifies as a subordinate court for the purposes of Article 203. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the Rent Controller was directed to decide the preliminary issue within one month and report progress fortnightly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller qualifies as a subordinate court under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What is the primary criterion to determine whether a forum or tribunal is a 'subordinate court' for the purposes of the High Court's supervisory control?
  • Can the term 'Court' in Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be construed in a wider, non-technical sense to advance the administration of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Ri Fat Parveen vs Selection Committee through Principal/1980 PLD Quetta 10 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-06-20
  medical college admissionprospectus rule12 years stay ruledomicile certificateequality before lawreasonable classificationdiscriminationbye-law validitycreation of additional seat
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Balochistan High Court challenged the validity and reasonableness of Rule 18 of the Admission Policy contained in the Prospectus of Bolan Medical College, Quetta. The impugned rule required domiciled candidates to establish that their parents had an aggregate stay of at least 12 years in Balochistan to be eligible for admission, a requirement not imposed on candidates classified as 'locals'. The petitioner, a high-merit domiciled applicant whose father was a transferable Central Government employee, was refused admission solely for non-compliance with this 12-year requirement. The High Court held that the prospectus rule operates as a bye-law and is liable to be struck down for unreasonableness and discrimination. It held that the rule created an arbitrary sub-classification among domiciled citizens and discriminated against them in violation of Articles 4, 22, and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Declaring the 12-year stay requirement ultra vires, the Court directed the petitioner's admission, ordering the creation of an additional seat if necessary.

  Questions settled

  • Can a rule or condition in an educational institution's prospectus be challenged and struck down on the ground of unreasonableness as a bye-law?
  • Whether imposing a 12-year provincial stay requirement on parents of domiciled candidates violates the equality guarantees under Articles 4, 22, and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the High Court under constitutional jurisdiction direct the admission of an eligible student in a subsequent academic year and order the creation of an additional seat if necessary?
  • Whether the fundamental rights under Articles 22 and 25 of the Constitution remain enforceable against discriminatory state actions despite the proclamation of emergency under the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order 1977?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Hassan and Another vs Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Zhob1980 PLD Quetta 43 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-04-26Read full judgment →
• Mir Dost Muhammad vs Government of Baluchistan and 3 Others1980 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-05-30
  criminal law special provisions ordinanceconstitution of tribunalmandatory provisionswant of jurisdictionillegal investigationconstitutional petitionvoid orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code by a Tribunal constituted under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968, along with the appellate and revisional orders confirming the same. The core legal questions addressed relate to whether the failure to afford the accused an opportunity of being heard regarding the constitution of the Tribunal violates mandatory statutory provisions, whether the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968 empowers authorities to order investigations into scheduled offences, and whether taking cognizance without fulfilling statutory prerequisites renders subsequent proceedings void. The court held that the mandatory provisions of section 6 of the Ordinance requiring the hearing of parties before constituting a Tribunal were flagrantly violated, that the Ordinance only provides for trials and not investigations, and that acting without jurisdiction renders the entire proceedings ab initio void. The court laid down the principle that where a statute prescribes a specific procedure for doing something, it must be done in that exact manner or not at all, and that any foundational illegality vitiates all subsequent superstructure of orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to give the accused an opportunity of being heard regarding the appointment of Tribunal members under section 6 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968 vitiates the trial?
  • Does the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968 empower the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner to order an investigation into scheduled offences?
  • What is the legal effect of a foundational illegality or lack of jurisdiction on subsequent appellate and revisional orders?
  • Whether the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of choice under Article 10 of the Constitution and section 27 of the Ordinance of 1968 is absolute and determinable in writ jurisdiction when facts are disputed?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmed vs Summary Military Court, Pishin and 2 Others1980 PLD Quetta 71 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-05-19Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Yasin and Another vs District Magistratecumdeputy1980 PLD Quetta 23 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-07-04Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad vs Province of Baluchistan and 2 Other1979 PLD Quetta 55 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-06-09Read full judgment →