Pakistan Case LawLatest 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. 4,389 judgments in total from the Islamabad High Court.
- Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed vs SHO Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad & others2023 IHC 114, 2024 PCRLJ 113 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra Court Appeal challenged an order dismissing a writ petition regarding the seizure of the appellant's vehicles by police. The appellant was nominated for abetment in an FIR but was not present at the scene, and the vehicles were seized from his residence during a raid. The core legal question was whether police could seize property under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or as "case property" when the property was not involved in the offense and no attachment order under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 existed. The Court held that the seizure was illegal, noting that police powers cannot be used to pressure an accused to surrender. It clarified that "case property" must be related to the commission of an offense. Furthermore, the Court established that the availability of alternate remedies does not bar writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 when an act is performed without lawful authority or is arbitrary. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the return of the vehicles.
Questions settled- Can police seize property under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if it was not used in the commission of an offense?
- Does the availability of an alternate remedy absolutely bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- What are the essential legal requirements for property to be classified as 'case property'?
- Can police seize property to pressure an accused to surrender in the absence of an attachment order under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Shehzad A. Siddiqui vs Finance Division through its Secretary and others2023 IHC 290 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-07-05Read full judgment →
- Shehryar Afridi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior & others2023 IHC 366 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-29Read full judgment →
- Shandana Gulzar Khan vs Mr. Sikandar Sultan Raja, Chief Election2023 IHC 76 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a criminal original petition arising out of a main writ petition titled Shandana Gulzar Khan Vs. Election Commission of Pakistan and others. The core legal question concerned whether the contempt proceedings or auxiliary criminal original petition should survive once the principal writ matter has been adjudicated upon. The court decided and held that since the main writ petition was allowed vide a judgment of even date, the instant criminal original petition had become infructuous and was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that ancillary or auxiliary proceedings such as criminal original petitions for contempt become infructuous and merit dismissal when the underlying main writ petition is finally decided.
Questions settled- What is the effect on a criminal original petition when the main writ petition from which it arises is allowed?
- Can a criminal original petition be dismissed as infructuous upon the adjudication of the principal writ matter?
- Shandana Gulzar Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 82, 2024 PLD Islamabad 28 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-17Read full judgment →
- Shahid Mehmood vs Benazir Income Support Programme Bisp through Secretary and others2023 PLJ Islamabad 267 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shahid Mehmood vs Benazir Income Support Programme (Bisp) and others2023 IHC 156, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1103 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition sought a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of two Directors within the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP). The core legal question was whether these subordinate administrative positions constitute 'public offices' amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the posts in question were not public offices. Relying on the principle established in Salahuddin vs Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd, the Court clarified that a writ of quo warranto only lies for substantive public offices created directly by statute or the Constitution, not for subordinate 'support-posts' created subsequently by regulations or delegated authority to assist statutory bodies. The Court found that the BISP Directors were merely employees, not holders of public office. Furthermore, the Court noted the petition was frivolous, motivated by personal vendetta, and filed after significant delay, resulting in the imposition of costs on the petitioner.
Questions settled- Does a writ of quo warranto lie against subordinate posts or 'support-posts' not created directly by statute?
- Are administrative positions within the Benazir Income Support Programme considered public offices for the purposes of Article 199 of the Constitution?
- What is the test for determining whether a position constitutes a substantive public office amenable to a writ of quo warranto?
- Can a court impose costs on a petitioner for filing a frivolous and vexatious petition?
- Shaheen Freight Service (SFS) through General Manager vs Mol Pakistan2023 CLD 1189 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-19Read full judgment →
- Secretary Ministry Of Housing And Works and others vs Akhtar Hussain and other2023 CLC 59 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-25Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz Ali vs Federation of the Pakistan, through Secretary Information and Broadcasting, Government of the Pakistan, Islamabad and 10 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 640 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), filed a writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Director (PS-09), alleging discrimination and violation of service regulations. The core legal question was whether the service regulations governing PEMRA employees are statutory in nature, thereby rendering the writ petition maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The court held that the PEMRA (Employees Service) Regulations, 2021, were framed by the authority itself without the approval or framing by the Federal Government, thus lacking statutory force. Consequently, the court determined that the relationship between PEMRA and its employees is governed by the principle of master and servant. The court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to enforce non-statutory service regulations. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable, as the petitioner failed to establish a statutory basis for the enforcement of service terms. The judgment reinforces the principle that in the absence of statutory rules, disputes regarding service conditions of employees of autonomous bodies are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Are the service regulations of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) considered statutory rules?
- Is a writ petition maintainable for the enforcement of non-statutory service regulations?
- Does the relationship between the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) and its employees fall under the principle of master and servant?
- Sarfraz Ali vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Information and Broadcasting Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 10 other2023 PLJ Islamabad 11 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Sarfraz Ali, filed a writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Director (PS-09), alleging discrimination and violation of service regulations by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA). The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable for the enforcement of service terms and conditions when the governing regulations lack statutory force. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that the PEMRA (Employees Service) Regulations, 2021, were neither framed nor approved by the Federal Government, thus lacking statutory backing. Consequently, the relationship between PEMRA and its employees is governed by the principle of "master and servant." The Court affirmed that where service regulations are non-statutory, constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, cannot be invoked for the redressal of service-related grievances. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed without addressing the merits of the claim, emphasizing that courts must determine the question of jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of a case.
Questions settled- Is a constitutional petition maintainable for the enforcement of service terms and conditions governed by non-statutory regulations?
- Does the relationship between PEMRA and its employees fall under the principle of master and servant?
- Are the PEMRA (Employees Service) Regulations, 2021, considered statutory rules?
- Must a court decide the question of its own jurisdiction before considering the merits of a case?
- Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 226 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-08Read full judgment →
- Sami Ullah Abraham vs Fawad Ahmad and 8 others2023 CLC 588 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-23Read full judgment →
- Saleema Bibi, Muhammad Ashram, Shamraiz Khan and another vs Worthy2023 IHC 414 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Saleem Ahmed Jan vs Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad and others2023 IHC 350, 2023 PLJ Islamabad 358, 2024 CLC 953 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment of Women to adjudicate property disputes and enforce orders through coercive measures, specifically regarding the eviction and auction of the petitioner's property. The core legal questions were whether the Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act, 2020, and the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, violate the constitutional separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the fundamental rights to due process and access to justice by conferring judicial powers on an executive body. The Court held that the Ombudsman, being an executive functionary, cannot exercise judicial powers, such as adjudicating civil property disputes, issuing binding orders, or enforcing them through coercive state machinery. Consequently, the Court declared several provisions of the 2020 Act and the 2013 Act ultra vires the Constitution. The judgment establishes that the adjudication of civil rights and obligations is a quintessential judicial function reserved for courts under the constitutional scheme of trichotomy of power, and executive bodies cannot be vested with judicial or contempt powers.
Questions settled- Can the Ombudsman, as an executive functionary, be vested with judicial powers to adjudicate civil property disputes between private citizens?
- Does the vesting of contempt powers in the Ombudsman violate Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Are the provisions of the Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act, 2020, and the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, ultra vires the Constitution for creating a parallel justice system?
- Can an administrative body or tribunal exercise coercive state power to enforce its orders in the absence of judicial oversight?
- Sajjad Rasheed Mirza and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 30 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-24Read full judgment →
- Sajid Khan and another vs Mst. Ibtesam Shahid and 03 others2023 IHC 428 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-22Read full judgment →
- Safia Bano Hashmi vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Information and another2023 IHC 284 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-12Read full judgment →
- Saffron Event Lawns (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Khalid Mahmood and another2023 IHC 258 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-30Read full judgment →
- Sabir Hussain vs Sajid Pervazi Minhas and others2023 IHC 420 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-19Read full judgment →
- Rubina Amjad vs Javaid Shafique Siddiqui and others2023 MLD 201 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
- Rizwan Ijaz & another vs Javed Akhtar & others2023 IHC 396, 2024 MLD 799 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge in revisional jurisdiction, which set aside a Judicial Magistrate’s order releasing accused persons under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate’s order under Section 63 CrPC is judicial or administrative, and consequently, whether it is amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435/439-A CrPC. The Court held that an order under Section 63 CrPC is administrative in nature and therefore not subject to revision. However, the Court determined that where such an order is patently illegal, perverse, or results in an abuse of the process of the court, the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to intervene. The principle laid down is that while administrative orders of a Magistrate are not revisable, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to set aside such orders to secure the ends of justice and prevent the perpetuation of manifest illegality.
Questions settled- Is an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, judicial or administrative in nature?
- Can a Sessions Judge exercise revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435/439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 against an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Can the High Court exercise inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to set aside an administrative order passed by a Magistrate?
- Riaz Hanif Rahi vs Government of Pakistan, through Secretary Ministry of Communication, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and 5 others2023 CLC 1187 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-29Read full judgment →
- Rashid Zaib vs Khan Afzal and another2023 YLR 2257 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of a Judicial Magistrate acquitting the respondent of charges under Sections 427 and 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning alleged mischief and criminal trespass. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the essential ingredients of these offences, particularly regarding the complainant's possession and ownership of the disputed property, which were concurrently subject to civil litigation. The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the complainant's possession of the property or that the damaged wall was located within the complainant's premises. The Court held that in the absence of established possession and ownership, criminal charges for trespass and mischief cannot be sustained. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that an acquittal judgment carries a double presumption of innocence, which was not rebutted by the appellant. The Court concluded that the trial court’s findings were legally sound, as the complainant failed to provide confidence-inspiring evidence to substantiate the criminal allegations, rendering the appeal meritless.
Questions settled- Does an acquittal judgment carry a double presumption of innocence?
- Can a conviction for criminal trespass or mischief be sustained when the complainant's possession of the property is not established?
- Is a criminal court the appropriate forum to determine ownership of property when civil suits regarding the same are pending?
- Rana Sohaib Shabbir and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 244 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
- Ran Amir and another vs Mst Ismat Bibi and another2023 PLC (C.S.) 553 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an interim order by the Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace, which dismissed the petitioners' application to dismiss a harassment complaint. The petitioners argued that continuing proceedings before the Ombudsman, while a criminal trial based on similar allegations was pending, would subject them to double jeopardy and violate Article 13 of the Constitution. The High Court held that criminal and departmental/civil proceedings can proceed concurrently as they have different objects, standards of proof, and potential outcomes. It noted that the penalties under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, are distinct from criminal sentences, and Section 12 of the Act explicitly states its provisions are 'in addition to' other laws. Finding no transgression of fundamental rights or double jeopardy, the Court dismissed the petition with costs, including additional costs for non-disclosure of a previous similar application.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings and departmental/civil proceedings based on the same facts proceed concurrently?
- Do parallel criminal and departmental proceedings constitute double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution?
- Are the provisions of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, in derogation of other laws?
- Is an acquittal in a criminal case a bar to the initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceedings?
- Can additional costs be imposed for inequitable conduct, such as non-disclosure of previous applications, in a writ petition?
- Raja Umar Khalid and others vs Raja Adnan Mehmood and others2023 IHC 318 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-20Read full judgment →
- Raja Tahir Mahmood vs Chief Commissioner, Islamabad and another.2023 IHC 176, 2023 IHC 26, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 36 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
- Raja Tahir Mahmood vs Chief Commissioner, Islamabad and another2023 IHC 26 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
- Raja Sohail Arshad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2023 IHC 196, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1246 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the recruitment process initiated by the National Counter Terrorism Authority (NACTA) for posts in BPS-17 and above, specifically alleging that the process violated the Establishment Division’s Office Memorandum dated 22.10.2014, which mandates that recruitment for BPS-16 and above be conducted through the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC). The core legal question was whether NACTA, as an autonomous statutory body, is legally obligated to route its recruitment for BPS-16 and above through the FPSC. The Court held that NACTA is not required to utilize the FPSC for such recruitments. The ratio of the decision is that the Establishment Division's policy applies only to civil servants and autonomous bodies whose own service rules mandate FPSC involvement. Since the National Counter Terrorism Authority Act, 2013 does not require FPSC intervention, NACTA is competent to conduct its own recruitment. The Court affirmed that autonomous bodies with independent statutory mechanisms for appointments are not subject to the FPSC's jurisdiction unless specifically provided by law, and directed NACTA to finalize its service regulations as required by its governing statute.
Questions settled- Is the National Counter Terrorism Authority legally required to conduct recruitment for BPS-16 and above through the Federal Public Service Commission?
- Does the Establishment Division's Office Memorandum dated 22.10.2014 mandate FPSC recruitment for all autonomous bodies?
- Does the National Counter Terrorism Authority Act 2013 require appointments to be routed through the Federal Public Service Commission?
- Raja Kamran Khan vs Ministry of Railways etc2023 IHC 426 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-13Read full judgment →
- Raja Arif Sultan Minhas vs Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) through its Chairman and others2023 IHC 384 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-19Read full judgment →
- Rahil Azizi vs The State & others2023 IHC 356, 2024 PLD Islamabad 231 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-19Read full judgment →
- Raheem Ullah Khan vs The State2023 YLR 1246 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order declaring the appellant a proclaimed offender and issuing non-bailable warrants. The core legal question was whether an absconder, who has failed to appear before the trial court, retains the right to be heard in an appellate forum and whether a power of attorney executed by such an individual is valid. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that an absconder is disentitled from seeking relief while evading the process of law. The court affirmed the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement, establishing that courts will not act in aid of those who frustrate judicial orders. It held that an absconder forfeits the right of audience and that any power of attorney executed by a fugitive is not properly constituted. Furthermore, the court emphasized that counsel representing an absconder without ensuring their surrender breaches professional obligations. The principle laid down is that an accused must submit to the due process of justice before seeking appellate intervention, as the court will not reward conduct that constitutes contempt of judicial authority.
Questions settled- Can an absconder or fugitive from justice be heard in an appellate court?
- Is a power of attorney executed by an absconder considered duly constituted for legal proceedings?
- Does the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement apply to criminal appeals in Pakistan?
- Are courts in Pakistan empowered to refuse a hearing to an absconder based on inherent powers?
- Rafaqat Hussain Shah Bukhari and others vs Secretary Ministry of Housing2023 PLJ Islamabad 335 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated matter involves multiple writ petitions and a contempt petition challenging the vires of Sections 15, 16, 19, and 20 of the Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act, 2020, along with disputes concerning the survey, measurement, and compensation methodology for Built-up Properties (BUPs) in sectors G-14 and G-15, Islamabad. The core legal questions relate to the constitutional competence of the parliament to enact the acquisition law, whether the statutory appeal mechanism creates a conflict of interest making the authority a judge in its own cause, and the validity of GIS-based versus physical surveys for BUP compensation. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the FGEHA Act, 2020 is intra vires the Constitution under the federal legislative list concerning the public service, and that the legislative framework provides a valid system of acquisition and compensation. The court ruled that the FGEHA's survey methodology combining GIS and physical verification was lawful, outlined detailed guidelines for framing rules under Section 26 of the Act, and directed the authority to release verified compensation and finalize development within stipulated timelines.
Questions settled- Whether the Parliament has the legislative competence under the Constitution of Pakistan to enact the Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act, 2020?
- Do Sections 15, 16, 19, and 20 of the Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act, 2020 suffer from a conflict of interest amounting to a party being a judge in its own cause?
- Whether the acquisition of land and Built-up Properties (BUPs) for housing schemes for federal government employees constitutes a 'public purpose' under the law?
- Are the survey and measurement methods utilizing Google GIS images and physical verification adopted by the FGEHA legally valid and binding?
- Qazi Muhammad Nabeel vs Ministry of Housing & Works and others2023 IHC 78 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-13Read full judgment →
- Prof. Dr. Shahid Mahmood Baig vs Ministry of Science and Technology and others2023 IHC 438, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1451 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, appointed as Chairman of the Pakistan Science Foundation (PSF) under the Pakistan Science Foundation Act, 1973, challenged a show cause notice and an order sending him on forced leave pending disciplinary proceedings, issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology. The core legal questions involved whether the Management Position Scales Policy, 2020 (MP Policy) governed the petitioner's appointment, whether an Additional Secretary on acting charge could initiate quasi-judicial disciplinary proceedings, and whether the President's statutory powers of appointment and removal could be delegated or exercised through the MP Policy without express statutory authority. The court held that while the MP Policy terms applied through the gazette notification, the show cause notice issued by an officer on look-after charge was void, and disciplinary powers being quasi-judicial cannot be delegated without express statutory authority. Furthermore, the forced leave order and assignment of acting charge to a junior, non-qualified officer were illegal. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned show cause notice and order were set aside.
Questions settled- Whether the Management Position Scales Policy applies to the appointment of the Chairman of the Pakistan Science Foundation?
- Can an Additional Secretary holding a look-after charge initiate quasi-judicial disciplinary proceedings?
- Does the President have the authority to delegate statutory powers of appointment and removal in the absence of an express provision in the parent statute?
- Whether a contractual employee appointed to a statutory position under a fixed tenure can be sent on forced leave pending disciplinary proceedings initiated by an unauthorized authority?
- Platinum Pharma Workers Union Pakistan vs National Industrial Relations2023 IHC 280 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition assailed the order of the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.), affirming the Registrar Trade Unions' (R.T.U.) decision to cancel the petitioner union's registration as an industry-wise trade union. Registration was cancelled after inquiries revealed that the union lacked multi-provincial membership and fell below the statutory threshold of one-fifth of the total workmen in the establishment under Section 8(2)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The petitioner argued that the cancellation was invalid because it was executed by the R.T.U. over four months after receiving N.I.R.C. permission, exceeding the seven-day timeframe specified in Section 11(3) of the Act. Dismissing the petition, the High Court held that where a statute prescribes a time limit for a public official to act without providing penalties or consequences for non-compliance, the requirement is directory rather than mandatory. Consequently, delay by the R.T.U. did not invalidate the cancellation. The Court also held that factual grounds not raised in the appeal before the Chairman, N.I.R.C. cannot be agitated for the first time in certiorari proceedings.
Questions settled- Is a statutory time limit binding on a public official directory or mandatory if no consequences for non-compliance are provided in the statute?
- Does the failure of the Registrar Trade Unions to cancel a trade union's registration within seven days under Section 11(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2012 invalidate the cancellation order?
- Can factual grounds that were not raised in an appeal before an appellate tribunal be raised for the first time in a constitutional writ petition?
- Petrosin Services Haro (Pvt.) Ltd., Islamabad vs National Highway Authority2023 PLD Islamabad 255 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-31Read full judgment →
- Pearl Continental Hotels National Labour Union through President vs National Industrial Relations Commission through Chairman and 4 others2023 PLC 206 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioner labour union challenging an order dated 22.02.2022 passed by an Authorized Officer of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which halted referendum proceedings for determination of a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA). The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition due to the presence of an alternate statutory remedy of appeal before the Full Bench of the Commission. The core legal questions were whether an order passed by an Authorized Officer delegated by a Member of the NIRC is deemed to be an order of a Bench appealable under Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and whether the constitutional petition was maintainable. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an Authorized Officer acts on delegated powers of the Commission's Member, rendering their order appealable before the Full Bench of the NIRC under Section 58(2) read with Sections 56(2) and 58(1) of the 2012 Act. Consequently, bypassing the adequate, functional statutory forum rendered the writ petition non-maintainable.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by an Authorized Officer acting under the delegated powers of a Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission is deemed to be an order of a Bench under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
- Whether an order of an Authorized Officer stopping referendum proceedings is appealable before the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission under Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
- Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan be maintained when an efficacious and functional alternate statutory remedy of appeal is available before the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission?
- Pakistan Television Corporation through Company Secretary vs Commissioner Inland Revenue (Audit-v), Large Taxpayers Office and 4 others2023 PTD 102 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-25Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. vs Mst. Fatima and others2023 IHC 188, 2024 PLC 324 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. (PTCL) to challenge concurrent orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) concerning a complaint filed by a daily-wage worker for the implementation of superannuation benefits and non-compliance with earlier orders. The core legal question centered on whether the NIRC possesses the jurisdiction to prosecute and punish a party for failing to implement its orders or whether such jurisdiction exclusively vests in a Labour Court or a Magistrate's Court under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the NIRC is fully empowered under Sections 33(6), 33(7), and 57(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 to penalize non-compliance and punish for contempt, and that the absence of an explicitly stated timeframe in the original order does not insulate a defaulter from prosecution if the order is not complied with within seven days. The key principle laid down is that statutory provisions empowering administrative tribunals to enforce their own orders and punish for contempt must be interpreted purposefully to prevent protracted litigation and safeguard the rights of workmen.
Questions settled- Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has the jurisdiction to punish a party for non-compliance with its orders under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
- Does the omission of a specific timeframe in an order passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission insulate a defaulter from prosecution under Section 33(6) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
- Can proceedings for non-compliance with a decision of the National Industrial Relations Commission be initiated independently of a Labour Court or a Magistrate of the First Class?
- Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited vs Pakistan2023 IHC 14 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-26Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited through Authoirzed Officer2023 PLJ Islamabad 324, 2024 PLC 79 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This intra-court appeal challenged a judgment of the Judge-in-Chambers which partly allowed a writ petition filed by registered trade unions of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (P.T.C.L.) seeking various service and financial benefits for workmen. The core legal question was whether a trade union or an association can maintain a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution to espouse the individual grievances and enforce the rights of its members. The Islamabad High Court held that a trade union lacks locus standi to file a constitutional petition in its own name for the enforcement of individual rights of workmen, as it is not an "aggrieved person" under Article 199. The Court ruled that provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 allowing a Collective Bargaining Agent to represent workmen do not authorize the institution of writ proceedings. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside, dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable while preserving the right of individual workers to seek remedies before appropriate forums.
Questions settled- Can a trade union file a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution to espouse the individual grievances of its members?
- Does Section 20(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 authorize a Collective Bargaining Agent to institute legal proceedings on behalf of workmen before any forum?
- Whether a trade union can maintain a writ petition for the enforcement of rights guaranteed to workers collectively in the presence of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
- Pakistan Telecom Mobile Limited (Ufone) and another vs The Learned2023 IHC 296 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns multiple writ petitions filed by employers challenging the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) to initiate contempt proceedings and issue arrest warrants against management for failing to implement NIRC orders. The core legal question is whether the NIRC, under the Industrial Relations Act 2012, possesses the authority to punish for non-compliance or contempt without referring the matter to a Labour Court or Magistrate. The Court held that the NIRC maintains the jurisdiction to prosecute and punish defaulters for non-compliance with its orders under Sections 33(6) and 57(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2012. The Court reasoned that the NIRC’s power to enforce its own orders is essential to its statutory functions and that the absence of a specified time frame in an order does not prevent prosecution if compliance is not achieved within seven days. The key principle laid down is that the NIRC is not denuded of its authority to punish for disobedience of its directions, and such powers are not exclusively reserved for Labour Courts or Magistrates under the current statutory framework.
Questions settled- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have the jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court under the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
- Can the National Industrial Relations Commission initiate prosecution for non-compliance with its orders if no specific time frame for implementation was mentioned in the original order?
- Is the National Industrial Relations Commission required to refer matters of non-compliance with its orders to a Labour Court or a Magistrate of the First Class?
- Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (Pti) through its Additional Secretary General Mr.2023 IHC 1, 2023 PLJ Islamabad 153, 2024 PLD Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-11Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf (Pti) through Additional Secretary General vs Election Commission of Pakistan and another2023 PLJ Islamabad 153 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan Medical Commission through Secretary vs Construction2023 PLJ Islamabad 136 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan Medical Commission ('PMC') through Secretary (Successor of Registrar PMDC), Islamabad Capital Territory vs Construction Experts (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive_Director, Islamabad and another2023 PLD Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs Sumera Ghaffar and others2023 IHC 314 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), challenged concurrent orders by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which reinstated a contract employee and declared her a permanent workman. The core legal question was whether a worker, engaged through third-party contractors but performing duties at PIAC for over two years, acquires the status of a permanent workman under the West-Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Court held that the nature of the work, rather than the contractual designation, determines employment status. Applying the "integration" and "control" tests, the Court found that the respondent performed work of a permanent nature, thereby attaining permanent status. The Court affirmed that employers cannot use third-party contracts to circumvent labor laws or deprive workers of statutory rights. Consequently, the NIRC’s findings were upheld, and the petition was dismissed. The judgment reinforces that when an establishment exercises control and the work is permanent, the worker is entitled to the protections of the 1968 Ordinance, irrespective of the existence of a third-party service provider.
Questions settled- Does a contract worker who performs duties of a permanent nature for more than nine months acquire the status of a permanent workman under the West-Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Can an employer use third-party contracts to circumvent the statutory rights of a worker performing permanent duties within the establishment?
- What criteria determine whether a contract worker is an employee of the principal establishment rather than the contractor?
- Is the National Industrial Relations Commission empowered to grant relief to a worker seeking the status of a permanent workman?
- Pakistan Engineering Council through Chairman and 3 others vs Federal2023 MLD 1945 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-28Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Artificial Leather Manufacturers Association and others vs Directorate General of Trade Organizations and others2023 IHC 332 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-21Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Agricultural Research Council vs Khurram Bashir, Ex-Research2023 IHC 236 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pak Telecom Mobile Limited vs M/s Saftey & Security Services (Private)2023 IHC 408 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Oil and Gas Development Company Ltd. vs Dr. Riaz Arshad, Deputy Chief2023 IHC 238 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Oil and Gas Development Company Limited vs Commissioner Inland2023 IHC 214 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-19Read full judgment →
- Noshiba Latif & twenty-one others vs The Islamia University of Bahawalpur2023 IHC 134 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-30Read full judgment →
- Nisar Ahmed Afzal & another vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB)2023 IHC 72 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns consolidated criminal appeals and a writ petition challenging asset freezing orders imposed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against the appellants. The core legal question was whether NAB could maintain freezing orders under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, following legislative amendments that ousted the Accountability Court's jurisdiction over matters related to the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010. Additionally, the Court examined whether NAB could proceed under the 2010 Act before the Court of Sessions. The Court held that the freezing orders under the 1999 Ordinance were no longer sustainable due to the retrospective change in law. However, it affirmed that NAB remains a competent investigating agency under the 2010 Act. The Court directed NAB to conclude its investigations and file a formal complaint before the Court of Sessions, which is empowered to independently adjudicate the attachment of assets. The key principle established is that while the Accountability Court's jurisdiction regarding the 2010 Act has been ousted, the Court of Sessions retains jurisdiction to adjudicate money laundering offences and related asset attachments upon a competent complaint.
Questions settled- Does the Accountability Court retain jurisdiction to adjudicate matters under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, following the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2022?
- Can the National Accountability Bureau initiate proceedings under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, before the Court of Sessions?
- Is a complaint in writing by an investigating officer appointed under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, a mandatory requirement for the Court of Sessions to take cognizance of an offence?
- Can freezing orders passed under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, survive after the retrospective amendment of the law?
- Niaz Hussain Shah vs The State & others2023 IHC 104 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-22Read full judgment →
- Neelum Tours & Travels (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 336 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-29Read full judgment →
- Naveed Nazeer vs National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA)2023 PLC (C.S.) 1330, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 9 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the dismissal of a Data Entry Operator by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) for misconduct involving the illegal processing of identity documents. The petitioner contended that the dismissal order was procedurally flawed and that the competent authority lacked the power to enhance the penalty recommended by the inquiry committee. The core legal question was whether a writ petition is maintainable against NADRA regarding service matters and whether the competent authority is bound by inquiry recommendations. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that NADRA Employees (Service) Regulations, 2002 are non-statutory, meaning the employment relationship is governed by the "master and servant" doctrine rather than statutory rules. Consequently, the High Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 199 to enforce these non-statutory terms. Additionally, the Court affirmed that a competent authority is not strictly bound by an inquiry committee's recommendations and may impose appropriate penalties upon proving misconduct, provided due process and a fair opportunity for defense are afforded.
Questions settled- Is a writ petition maintainable against the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) regarding service matters?
- Are the NADRA Employees (Service) Regulations, 2002 statutory or non-statutory in nature?
- Is the competent authority legally bound to adhere to the penalty recommended by an inquiry committee in service disciplinary proceedings?
- Nauman Safdar vs Citi Lab (Computerized Innovative Tests and Investigation Lab)2023 CLD 1324 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-19Read full judgment →
- National Telecommunication Corporation (NTC) vs Pakistan2023 CLC 1481 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-20Read full judgment →
- National Highway Authority through Chairman vs Messrs Abdullah Khan &2023 MLD 1672 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- National Highway Authority (NHA) through Chairman vs Messrs Sardar2023 CLC 493 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-11Read full judgment →
- National Highway Authority (NHA) through Chairman vs Messrs Sambu2023 CLC 1372, 2023 CLD 679 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-07Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Federal Ombudsman, Constitutional Avenue2023 IHC 46 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-04Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan and others vs Fazal Rahim Khan and others2023 IHC 136 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-31Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan and others vs Abdul Latif Qureshi and others2023 IHC 138 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-31Read full judgment →
- Nasir Mehmood vs Additional District Judge, Islamabad-West and 2 others2023 CLC 350 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-02Read full judgment →
- Naseem Anjum vs Director General, F.I.A., Islamabad and 8 others2023 YLR 701 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-20Read full judgment →
- Namoos Zaheer vs Azfar Husnain and others2023 IHC 56 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-04Read full judgment →
- Namoos Zaheer vs Azfar Hasnain and another2023 PLD Islamabad 220, 2023 PLJ Islamabad 273 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-04Read full judgment →
- Naeem Ul Haq& 6 others vs Federation of Pakistan & 2 others2023 IHC 52 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses a consolidated batch of writ petitions filed by contract employees seeking regularization of their services in closed Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) projects under the Ministry of Climate Change. The core legal questions involved whether project employees possess an enforceable right to regularization upon project closure and whether parity could be claimed based on a previous order passed in the case of a counterpart employee. The Court held that project employees have no vested right to permanent absorption upon the completion or closure of a project, and an unlawful benefit granted to one individual cannot be used to claim equality under Article 25 of the Constitution as it guarantees equal protection of law, not equal protection of lawlessness. The key principles laid down include that appointment on project posts terminates upon the cessation of the project, high courts cannot assume the role of appointing authorities under Article 199 of the Constitution, and regularization cannot take place without statutory backing or conversion of the project from development to non-development phase.
Questions settled- Whether project employees have a vested right to regularization upon the closure or completion of a PSDP project?
- Can a citizen invoke Article 25 of the Constitution to claim the benefit of a previous erroneous or unlawful judicial order granted to a counterpart?
- Does the High Court possess the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to direct the regularization of contract or project employees without statutory backing?
- Whether appointment on a project post confers any right for permanent absorption or indefinite retention upon the winding up of the project?
- Nadeem Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 326 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-15Read full judgment →
- M/s. Sun Diplomatic Bonded Warehouse (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Customs Appellate2023 PLJ Islamabad 87 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Sun Diplomatic Bonded Warehouse (Pvt.) Ltd vs Customs AppellatePTCL 2023 CL. 667 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Pakistan LNG Limited through Duly Authorized Representative vs2023 PLJ Islamabad 40 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Bestway Cement Ltd. through Senior Assistant Manager Legal and2023 PLJ Islamabad 110 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns writ petitions challenging orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) regarding the reinstatement of employees. The core legal questions involve the NIRC's jurisdiction over individual grievances for trans-provincial entities and whether an employee's acceptance of clearance certificates and final dues bars them from challenging termination. The Court held that the NIRC possesses exclusive jurisdiction over individual grievances for trans-provincial establishments under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. However, the Court found that the NIRC failed to properly evaluate whether the employees' acceptance of dues constituted a voluntary "full and final settlement" or merely payment for past services. Furthermore, the NIRC erred by failing to properly process documentary evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases for a fresh determination on the admissibility of clearance certificates and the voluntary nature of the settlements. The principle established is that while accepting wages for past service does not forfeit the right to challenge termination, the voluntary acceptance of full and final settlement dues may preclude such a challenge.
Questions settled- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have exclusive jurisdiction over individual grievances for trans-provincial establishments?
- Does an employee's acceptance of payment for past services bar them from challenging the termination of their employment?
- Under what circumstances does the acceptance of full and final settlement dues preclude an employee from challenging their termination?
- What is the procedure for a Tribunal to handle documentary evidence when an objection to admissibility is raised?
- M/s. Askari Bank Limited vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2023 PTCL CL. 53 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
- M/s Zaver Petroleum Corporation (Private) Limited vs Securities and2023 IHC 380 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Yasir Farooq Enterprises vs Pakistan Public Works Department and2023 IHC 64 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-07Read full judgment →
- M/s Wackenhut Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd vs Muhammad Nazir and others2023 IHC 268 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which issued an ex-parte decree against the petitioner and subsequently dismissed an application to set it aside. The core legal question concerns whether the Authority acted lawfully in proceeding ex-parte without establishing proper service and whether it failed to pass a reasoned, speaking order on the merits of the claim. The High Court held that the Authority’s orders were legally flawed as they lacked a reasoned evaluation of evidence and failed to demonstrate an application of mind, particularly in an ex-parte context. The Court emphasized that quasi-judicial bodies must decide matters objectively, ensuring that orders manifest the judicial process rather than arbitrary conclusions. Relying on Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Court established that all public functionaries must provide reasons for their decisions to satisfy the requirements of justice. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Authority for a fresh decision on merits after allowing the petitioner to file a reply.
Questions settled- Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 have the power to pass an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of notice?
- Is a quasi-judicial authority required to pass a reasoned, speaking order when deciding a claim in the absence of the respondent?
- Does the limitation period for setting aside an ex-parte order run from the date of the order or from the date of knowledge of the order?
- What is the scope of the duty of public functionaries to provide reasons for their decisions under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
- M/s The Hub Power Company Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Inland2023 IHC 262 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-05Read full judgment →
- M/s Seco Safe Works vs The Capital Development Authority through its2023 IHC 358, 2024 CLC 1236 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-19Read full judgment →
- M/s Sarwarkhels (Pvt.) Ltd vs OGRA Islamabad Etc2023 IHC 74 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-14Read full judgment →
- M/s Interman Trading Fze Dubai vs Oil & Gas Development Company and2023 IHC 312 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-01Read full judgment →
- M/s Glitz Pharma vs M/s Getz Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd.2023 IHC 216 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-27Read full judgment →
- M/s Fauji Fertilizer Company Limited and another vs Federation of Pakistan2023 IHC 388, PTCL 2024 CL. 594 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-18Read full judgment →
- M/s Emaar DHA Islamabad Limited vs Commissioner Inland Revenue2023 IHC 348 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
- M/s Army Welfare Trust, Rawalpindi vs Commissioner of Income Tax2023 PCTLR 92 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-24Read full judgment →
- M/s Abdul Wahab and Enterprises vs Capital Development Authority and2023 IHC 304 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-20Read full judgment →
- Murad Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Water & Power and others2023 IHC 260 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muneeza Fatima vs Chairman Arbitration Council Islamabad and another2023 IHC 230 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yonas vs Civil Judge, East-Islamabad and others2023 IHC 282 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Waris vs The State & another2023 IHC 404 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner, Muhammad Waris, in a case registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving an armed robbery. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidence of his identification by the complainant, the recovery of the snatched mobile phone at his pointation, and his extensive criminal history. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, as there was sufficient tangible evidence connecting him to the offence and a high likelihood of him repeating the offence, given his status as a habitual offender. The court emphasized that while bail is a matter of liberty, it cannot be granted when the accused is a habitual offender whose modus operandi poses a threat to society. Furthermore, the court laid down principles regarding the necessity of maintaining accurate criminal records, the duty of investigating officers to document previous convictions under Section 75 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the effective enforcement of preventive measures under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to curb habitual criminality.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when there is sufficient evidence of identification and recovery of stolen property, and the accused is a habitual offender?
- What is the scope and purpose of Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding habitual offenders?
- What is the duty of an investigating officer regarding the documentation of an accused's previous convictions under Section 75 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the fact of a previous conviction be added to a charge after it has been initially omitted?
- Muhammad Waqar Azeem and another vs Dr. Kartar Lal Pirwani and others2023 IHC 186, 2024 CLC 1941 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-07-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tariq vs Mrs. Marrium Sial and another2023 CLC 1107 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-10-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Suleman vs Muhammad Saad Naseem and 2 others2023 PLD Islamabad 124 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Shahzad vs Government Of Pakistan And Another2024 IHC 76, 2023 IHC 128, 2024 PLD 109 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-26Read full judgment →