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.
- Ashfaq Hussain, etc vs Ministry of Human Resource Development, etc2021 IHC 222 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking adjudication of their claims regarding old-age benefits which were allegedly not addressed by the respondent Institution since 2018. During the proceedings, the counsel for the respondent Institution submitted that the petitioners had not filed formal complaints under Section 33 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, but stated that if such complaints were filed, they would be placed before the competent adjudicating authority in accordance with the law. The Court held that grievances must be considered and adjudicated upon in the manner prescribed under the relevant law. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to the petitioners to file their respective complaints under Section 33 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, and directed the competent authority to adjudicate them expeditiously within ninety days.
Questions settled- Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 be maintained without first exhausting the statutory remedy provided under Section 33 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
- Whether grievances regarding old-age benefits must be adjudicated in the manner prescribed under the relevant statute?
- Asad Javed vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior2022 PLD Islamabad 206 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-20Read full judgment →
- Arshad alias Goga vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1578 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 1285 grams of charas. The petitioner challenged the prosecution's case on two primary grounds: procedural irregularities regarding the investigation conducted by an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector, in violation of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and the contention that the quantity recovered constitutes a borderline case between clauses (b) and (c) of Section 9 of the Act. The Court held that the investigation by an officer below the prescribed rank, combined with the borderline quantity of the narcotic substance, rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that mere involvement in other criminal cases, without conviction, does not disentitle an accused to bail. Emphasizing that personal liberty is a guaranteed constitutional right, the Court granted the bail, noting that tentative assessment favored the petitioner and that incarceration should not be used as a punitive measure before trial.
Questions settled- Does an investigation conducted by an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector in a narcotics case constitute a ground for further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the recovered quantity of narcotics falls in the borderline range between clauses (b) and (c) of Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Does the mere involvement of an accused in other criminal cases, without conviction, disentitle them to the concession of bail?
- Anwaar-Ul-Haq vs Judicial Magistrate, P.S. Ramna, Islamabad and 32021 P Cr. L J 705, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 1 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the acquittal of respondents by the Judicial Magistrate in a case involving Sections 489-F and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a dispute over unpaid vehicle rentals and a dishonored cheque. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust and the dishonest issuance of a cheque. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that mere non-payment of rent or breach of a rental contract does not constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406, which requires proof of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation. Furthermore, the court found the prosecution failed to establish the dishonest intention required for Section 489-F. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in appeals against acquittal, a double presumption of innocence exists, and appellate interference is only warranted if the trial court’s findings are perverse, illegal, or suffer from significant misreading of evidence, which was not the case here.
Questions settled- Does the mere non-payment of rent under a vehicle rental agreement constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What are the essential ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
- Is a guarantor liable for the payment of rent under a contract where the primary obligation lies with the hirer?
- Anti-Narcotics Force (Anf), Regional Directorate (North) Rawalpindi2021 P Cr. L J 1520 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was preferred by the Anti-Narcotics Force against an order passed by the Special Court (CNS), Islamabad, which had dismissed an application filed by the prosecution under section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 seeking to summon a forensic chemical analysis expert. The core legal question revolved around whether a trial court is precluded from summoning a Government Analyst to clarify ambiguities or omissions in a chemical report regarding tests and protocols applied, and whether doing so amounts to improperly allowing the prosecution to fill a lacuna in its case. The Islamabad High Court held that while a fresh test cannot be conducted or a new report prepared, the trial court is not precluded from summoning the chemical analyst along with the existing record under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 or the proviso to section 510 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 to remove ambiguities and provide clarifications, provided it is essential for the just decision of the case and does not constitute filling an inherent weakness or irretrievable lacuna. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court can summon a Government Analyst under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to clarify ambiguities in a chemical report?
- Does summoning a chemical analyst to explain an existing report amount to allowing the prosecution to fill a lacuna in its case?
- What are the essential requirements that must be contained in the report of a Government Analyst under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Amjad Mustafa Malik vs Director General, National Accountability Bureau2021 PLD Islamabad 266 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
- Allaud-din Tahir, etc vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, etc2021 IHC 202 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Allah Dad vs Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Islamabad and another2021 IHC 280 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-15Read full judgment →
- All Pakistan Ztbl Workers Union (Cba) and others vs Federation Of Pakistan2021 PLC 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition filed in the public interest by the All Pakistan ZTBL Workers Union and others sought directions for the immediate regular appointment of a Registrar Trade Unions under Section 4 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, alongside establishing proper office infrastructure in the Islamabad Capital Territory. The core legal question concerned whether the Federal Government could indefinitely delay regular statutory appointments through prolonged ad hoc or temporary stop-gap arrangements under the pretext of rule-making. The Islamabad High Court allowed the petition, holding that substantive statutory powers to make appointments are not conditional upon prior framing of rules and that continuous ad hocism violates good governance, separation of powers, and fundamental rights. The Court laid down the principle that statutory posts must be filled on a regular basis without delay, prohibiting indefinite acting, current charge, or look-after arrangements, and directed the respondents to complete the regular appointment process via promotion or direct recruitment within a specified timeframe.
Questions settled- Whether the substantive power of the Federal Government to appoint a Registrar Trade Unions under Section 4 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 is conditional upon the prior framing of rules?
- Can an appointment to a statutory post like the Registrar Trade Unions be kept on an ad hoc, temporary, or look-after charge basis for an indefinite period?
- Does the absence of specific recruitment rules preclude the Federal Government from exercising its statutory power to make regular appointments?
- Whether prolonged ad hoc appointments to public offices violate the fundamental rights of eligible candidates and the principles of good governance?
- Ali Trust Pakistan through President vs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad through Chairman and 7 others2021 P Cr. L J 1738 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition addressed the refusal by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) to issue a transfer letter for a commercial property purchased by the petitioner, citing an ongoing inquiry by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) into the 2007 conversion of the property's trade status under Section 23 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. The core legal questions revolved around the scope, effect, and applicability of Section 23 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, regarding restrictions on property transfers and whether NAB has the authority to issue 'cautions' or direct public authorities to withhold property transfers without formal freezing orders under Section 12. The Islamabad High Court held that Section 23 is merely a declaratory provision determining priority of rights and does not vest NAB with affirmative powers to issue instructions for placing 'cautions' on properties or withhold transfers in the absence of a freezing order. The Court laid down the principle that the power to restrict property is strictly governed by Section 12 under judicial oversight of the Accountability Court, and indefinite restrictions violate the fundamental property rights guaranteed under Article 23 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the impugned CDA letter making transfer contingent on NAB clearance was set aside.
Questions settled- Does Section 23 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 vest NAB with the authority to issue instructions to public authorities to place a caution against the transfer of property?
- Can the Capital Development Authority refuse to transfer property solely on the basis of a communication from NAB under Section 23 without a formal freezing order under Section 12?
- Whether an indefinite restriction on the disposal of property resulting from a prolonged NAB inquiry violates the fundamental right to property under Article 23 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- What is the proper legal remedy for a third-party purchaser seeking to ensure a property transfer is not void under Section 23 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 during a pending NAB inquiry?
- Ali Shan vs The State2021 IHC 212 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a second post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Ali Shan, in a case involving the recovery of 96 kilograms of charas and 35 kilograms of opium, registered under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial, citing the failure of the trial court to comply with a previous High Court direction to conclude the proceedings within two months. The core legal question was whether the non-compliance with a previous judicial direction for a speedy trial, coupled with the delay in trial proceedings, constitutes a sufficient fresh ground for the grant of post-arrest bail in a case involving a heinous narcotics offense. The Court held that while an accused has an inalienable right to a speedy trial, non-compliance with a prior direction for trial conclusion does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, particularly when the recovery involves a huge quantity of narcotics. The petition was dismissed, with the Court emphasizing that the gravity of the offense outweighs procedural delays in this context.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a trial court to comply with a previous High Court direction to conclude a trial within a specified period automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Can a second post-arrest bail petition be granted solely on the ground of delay in trial when the bail was previously dismissed on merits?
- Is the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics a relevant factor in denying post-arrest bail despite delays in the trial process?
- Ali Raza vs MCB Bank Limited and another2021 CLD 986, 2022 [M] CLR 1000, 2022 PCTLR 595 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
- Ali Asghar vs Raja M. Siddique and others2021 CLC 1348 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges an appellate order that reversed a trial court's decision allowing the petitioner to be impleaded as a defendant in a long-standing civil suit. The core legal question was whether a subsequent purchaser of the suit property, who claims title and possession, constitutes a necessary party under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that while a plaintiff is generally the dominus litis, this principle is subject to the court's power to implead parties whose presence is essential for a complete and effective adjudication. The Court reasoned that because the petitioner and other transferees were in possession of the property and would be directly affected by any decree, their exclusion would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and potential injustice. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate order and restored the trial court's decision, mandating that all purchasers under the relevant mutation be impleaded as defendants. The key principle laid down is that to avoid multiplicity of litigation, persons asserting title and possession in the suit property are necessary parties whose inclusion is required for the effective settlement of all questions involved.
Questions settled- Can a person who asserts title and possession in suit property be impleaded as a necessary party even if the plaintiff objects?
- Does the principle of dominus litis prevent a court from adding a party whose presence is necessary for complete adjudication?
- Is a subsequent purchaser of suit property a necessary party to a pending civil suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings?
- Ali Akbar vs Daud Akhtar and others2021 CLC 616 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-04-19Read full judgment →
- Ahmed Murtaza vs Naseera Fatima Sughra and 2 others2021 CLC 400 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-12-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order by the Executing Court that dismissed an execution petition for a decree of specific performance, citing alleged fraud and non-transferability of the suit property. The appellant had obtained a decree for specific performance based on sale agreements, with the Capital Development Authority (CDA) having previously submitted a report confirming ownership and the absence of injunctive orders during the trial. The core legal question was whether an Executing Court, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, possesses the jurisdiction to go behind a decree and entertain new objections regarding fraud or misrepresentation that were not raised during the trial. The High Court held that the Executing Court acted beyond its jurisdiction. It ruled that an Executing Court cannot look beyond the decree or question its correctness, as such matters must be raised during the trial or through a separate application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for execution, affirming that pre-decretal matters cannot be re-litigated during execution proceedings.
Questions settled- Can an Executing Court go behind a decree to determine questions of fraud or misrepresentation that were not raised during the trial?
- Is an Executing Court authorized to entertain new objections regarding the legality of a decree under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What is the appropriate legal mechanism for challenging a decree alleged to have been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation?
- Ahmad Hussain Soomro vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2021 IHC 124 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the notifications issued by the Establishment Division repatriating the petitioner to his parent department and refusing his absorption into the Officers Management Group (OMG) against the 10% deputationist quota. The core legal questions were whether a deputationist has a vested right to remain in a borrowing department beyond the maximum period, and whether the petitioner could compel the government to process his absorption through the Departmental Selection Committee (DSC) rather than the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC). The Court held that a deputationist has no vested right to remain on deputation indefinitely or to dictate the mode of absorption. The Court affirmed that the Establishment Division acted within its authority and in compliance with prior Supreme Court directions by requiring the petitioner to undergo the FPSC selection process. The key principle laid down is that deputation is a temporary arrangement, and absorption into a new cadre requires strict adherence to prescribed selection procedures, which cannot be bypassed or dictated by the deputationist. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant on deputation possess a vested right to remain in the borrowing department for the entire duration of the deputation period?
- Can a deputationist compel the government to process their permanent absorption into a new cadre through a specific forum like the Departmental Selection Committee instead of the Federal Public Service Commission?
- Is a civil servant who was initially appointed through the Federal Public Service Commission exempt from undergoing the same process for induction into a different cadre?
- Aftab Hussain and another vs The State and another2021 KLR Criminal Cases 318, 2021 P Cr. L J 761 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for the murder of the deceased, a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of "last seen" evidence, the validity of an identification parade where photographs were allegedly available to witnesses, and the credibility of chance witnesses. The Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It found the "last seen" evidence unreliable as it lacked the necessary corroboration and failed to exclude the possibility of third-party interference. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the identification parade was fundamentally flawed because the accused's photographs were available to witnesses beforehand, rendering the identification worthless. Additionally, the testimony of chance witnesses was discarded for lack of justifiable reasons for their presence. The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and incompatible with the innocence of the accused. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted, highlighting systemic failures in the criminal justice system's investigative processes.
Questions settled- Is the circumstance of the deceased being last seen in the company of the accused sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Does the availability of an accused's photographs to witnesses prior to an identification parade render the identification evidence unreliable?
- Under what circumstances can the testimony of a chance witness be accepted in a criminal trial?
- What is the standard of proof required for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal case?
- Aftab Ahmed vs Regional Head/Director, Employees Old-Age Benefits2021 IHC 2 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns writ petitions challenging the denial of pensionary benefits by the Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI). The core legal question was whether the EOBI correctly interpreted Section 22(2)(ii) of the EOBI Act, 1976, via Circular No. 3/2017-18, which restricted pension concessions by linking eligibility strictly to the date an establishment became subject to the Act. The Court held that the circular was an incorrect interpretation of the law and set it aside. It clarified that Section 22 creates three distinct categories for pension eligibility based on the insured person's age at the time of registration: those aged 18-40 require 15 years of contributions; those over 40 but under 45 require 7 years; and those over 45 require 5 years. The Court affirmed the principle that the EOBI Act is beneficial legislation, requiring a liberal and wide interpretation to advance the remedy for employees, and that literal construction must be applied where statutory language is unambiguous, preventing administrative authorities from imposing restrictive conditions not found in the statute itself.
Questions settled- Does Section 22 of the EOBI Act, 1976, establish different contribution periods for pension eligibility based on the age of the insured person at the time of registration?
- Can an administrative circular restrict the scope of pension benefits provided under the EOBI Act, 1976?
- Is the EOBI Act, 1976, considered a beneficial legislation requiring a liberal interpretation in favor of employees?
- Aftab Ahmed vs Regional Head/Director, Employees Old-Age Benefits2021 PLC (C.S.) 1200 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the interpretation of eligibility criteria for pensionary benefits under the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976. The petitioners, having contributed to the Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) funds, challenged the rejection of their pension claims, which the EOBI had denied based on Circular No. 3/2017-18, restricting concessionary pension benefits to those whose date of joining coincided with the date of the Act's applicability to their establishment. The core legal question was whether the EOBI could restrict the statutory eligibility criteria for old-age pensions through an administrative circular. The Court held that the EOBI Act, 1976 is a beneficial statute intended to provide security to employees, and its provisions must be interpreted liberally to advance the remedy. The Court set aside the circular, ruling that Section 22 of the Act establishes three distinct categories of insured persons based on age at registration, with varying contribution requirements. The principle laid down is that administrative circulars cannot override or restrict the clear, unambiguous provisions of a beneficial statute, and statutory interpretation must favor the intended beneficiaries of such legislation.
Questions settled- Can an administrative circular restrict the eligibility criteria for pensionary benefits provided under the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
- Does the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 create different categories of insured persons based on age at the time of registration for determining contribution periods?
- Should beneficial statutes be interpreted liberally to advance the remedy for the intended beneficiaries?
- Aftab Ahmed Barlas vs Director General Of Trade Organization and others2021 CLD 204 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-19Read full judgment →
- Afsana Afsar vs Federal Public Service Commission, etc2021 IHC 224 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-12Read full judgment →
- Afaq Ali vs The State2021 IHC 100 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner Afaq Ali seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 9-C and 15 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, involving the alleged recovery of 2400 grams of charas and 100 grams of Ice. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the huge quantity of narcotics recovered and his specific nomination in the FIR. The Islamabad High Court held that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and since the petitioner was traveling in the vehicle and actively participated in the recovery rather than being a mere passenger, the recovered substance is attributed to him. The chemical examiner's report is positive, and the challan has already been submitted. Consequently, the court dismissed the post-arrest bail petition while directing the trial court to conclude the trial within two months.
Questions settled- Whether an accused found traveling in a vehicle from which narcotics are recovered can be granted post-arrest bail?
- Does the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotics fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- What is the effect of a positive chemical examiner report on a post-arrest bail petition in narcotics cases?
- Abid Zaheer vs Chief Commissioner, ICT and another2021 IHC 158 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-31Read full judgment →
- Abid Saleem Haider, etc vs Aamir Ali Ahmed, Chairman Capital2021 IHC 230 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed alleging the violation of a previous court order dated 15-02-2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 611/2019, specifically concerning the upgradation of a post within the Capital Development Authority. The respondent authority submitted a report indicating that the petitioners had been granted a hearing, their grievances were reviewed by an anomaly committee, and the committee's recommendations were pending before the Board for a final decision. The Court determined that contempt proceedings were unnecessary given the actions taken by the authority. Regarding the core legal question of whether a court can compel the upgradation of a post, the Court held that the upgradation of a post falls exclusively within the domain of the employer. It established the principle that no employee possesses a vested right to compel an employer to upgrade a position, as such matters are the sole prerogative of the employer, subject to the policies and conditions prescribed by the Federal Government. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as being without merit.
Questions settled- Can a court compel an employer to upgrade a specific post?
- Does an employee have a vested right to demand the upgradation of their post?
- Is the upgradation of a post within the exclusive domain of the employer?
- Abdullah Khan vs Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-II) Regional Tax2021 PTD 1275 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Raheem and 2 others vs The State and another2021 PLJ Islamabad 86, 2021 P Cr. L J 882 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, read with section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of an FIR registered under sections 408/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners contended that the FIR was a retaliatory measure stemming from a business dispute. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR when disputed facts exist and an alternate remedy is available. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court’s inherent powers under section 561-A are reserved for exceptional cases involving glaring illegality and undisputed facts, not for fact-finding or bypassing the trial court. The Court affirmed that where an adequate alternate remedy exists under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, allowing for premature acquittal, a constitutional petition for quashment is not maintainable. The judgment reinforces the principle that trial courts have the exclusive domain to scrutinize evidence and determine facts, and inherent powers cannot be used to short-circuit these proceedings.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR when disputed facts exist?
- Is a constitutional petition for the quashment of an FIR maintainable when an adequate alternate remedy under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is available?
- Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to engage in fact-finding activities during proceedings for the quashment of an FIR?
- Abdul Raheem and 2 others vs State and another2021 PLJ Islamabad 86 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Khameed vs Muhammad Shabbir, etc2021 PLD Islamabad 405, 2021 IHC 120 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arose from judgments and decrees of the lower courts that decreed a suit for damages for malicious prosecution filed by the respondents against the appellant, awarding Rs. 500,000, which the first appellate court reduced to Rs. 200,000 on the grounds that the respondents were village dwellers. The core legal questions involved the scope of High Court interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in concurrent findings of fact regarding malicious prosecution, the essential elements of malicious prosecution, and whether the quantum of damages could be reduced based on the social standing or residential background of the victims. The Islamabad High Court held that the appellate court's reduction of damages based on the respondents being village dwellers was perverse, discriminatory, and violated Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, thereby setting aside the reduction and restoring the trial court's damage award. The key principles laid down include that the value of a citizen's liberty, dignity, and reputation does not depend on urban or rural residence, that malicious prosecution requires proof of malice and absence of reasonable cause, and that courts must robustly discourage frivolous litigation and abuse of the legal process through appropriate damage awards and litigation costs under Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding malicious prosecution in a regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the quantum of damages for loss of liberty, dignity, and reputation in a malicious prosecution suit vary based on whether the victim is a resident of a village or an urban area?
- What are the essential elements required to establish a claim for damages for malicious prosecution under Pakistani law?
- Can a court award discretionary damages for mental anguish and loss of reputation even if specific pecuniary loss is not mathematically proved?
- Abbas Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 216 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of abduction under Section 364/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Islamabad High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail, particularly in light of the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused had already been granted bail by the Court in similar circumstances. The petitioner contended that the alleged abductee had contracted a voluntary marriage, that the investigation was complete, and that the trial had commenced. The prosecution argued that the marriage violated the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929. The Court, observing that the case against the co-accused had been deemed one of further inquiry and that the co-accused had been granted bail, held that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds, while directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months. The holding emphasizes the principle of consistency in bail adjudication.
Questions settled- Does the principle of consistency apply when granting bail to a co-accused in a criminal case?
- Is a case involving conflicting evidence regarding the age of an alleged abductee and the validity of a marriage considered a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can a court grant post-arrest bail while simultaneously directing the trial court to conclude the trial within a specific timeframe?
- Abbas Ahmed vs The State2021 IHC 28 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 3080 grams of charas from his house. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the heavy quantity of narcotics recovered, which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that a huge quantity of charas was recovered from the petitioner's direct possession, positive chemical examiner reports matched the seized substance, and the petitioner was implicated in other similar cases. The Court established that where an accused is charged with an offense falling within the prohibitory clause involving a commercial quantity of narcotics and positive forensic reports, bail ought to be withheld, while directing the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Questions settled- Whether an accused found in possession of a large quantity of narcotics falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does a positive chemical examiner report regarding recovered narcotics prima facie connect the accused to the crime for bail purposes?
- Can a bail petition be dismissed when the trial is already at an advanced stage and challan has been submitted?
- Zoom Marketing Oils (Pvt.) Limited through Authorized Attorney vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Energy and 3 others2022 [M] CLR 1223, 2020 PLD Islamabad 372 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-25Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal, Ex-Equivalence And Attestation Clerk vs Federation Of Pakistan2020 PLC (C.S.) 541 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an ex-equivalence and attestation clerk, challenged the failure of the Inter Board Committee of Chairmen (I.B.C.C.) to restore his services following his acquittal in a criminal case and the setting aside of his initial termination via a departmental appeal that ordered a de novo inquiry. The core legal question was whether the employer could rely on an initial termination order that had been washed out by an appellate order directing a de novo inquiry, or on mere recommendations of an inquiry committee without a formal penalty order by the competent authority. The Islamabad High Court held that once an appellate authority orders a de novo inquiry, the original termination order stands washed out, and mere recommendations of an inquiry committee cannot substitute for a formal order of a competent authority. The Court laid down the principle that departmental inquiry recommendations do not take effect as punitive orders until formally passed by the competent authority, and that an appellate order for a de novo inquiry supersedes the prior penalty.
Questions settled- Does an appellate order directing a de novo inquiry wash out the original termination order?
- Can mere recommendations of an inquiry committee be equated with an order passed by a competent authority?
- Does an acquittal in a criminal case automatically bar the continuation or initiation of departmental proceedings?
- Is an employer bound to decide a reinstated employee's pending application through a speaking order after affording a hearing?
- Wazir Khan vs Nazar Jaffar and others2020 KLR Criminal Cases 73 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-12Read full judgment →
- Wasiq Nazir Satti vs The State2020 MLD 1564 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence for the murder of the deceased under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution relied on ocular testimony from the deceased's brothers, who claimed to witness the appellant shooting the deceased at an under-construction house. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the evidence. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the case. The court noted that the ocular testimony was contradicted by both the scaled site plans and the medical evidence, particularly regarding the presence of tattooing marks on the deceased, which indicated a close-range firing inconsistent with the witnesses' accounts. Furthermore, the forensic report failed to link the recovered weapon to the crime. Applying the principle that reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused when the evidence is not confidence-inspiring, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, answering the murder reference in the negative.
Questions settled- Does the presence of tattooing marks on a deceased's body necessarily contradict ocular testimony claiming a specific firing distance?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the forensic report explicitly states that the recovered crime weapon does not match the recovered bullet empties?
- Is a conviction valid when the ocular testimony is materially contradicted by the scaled site plan prepared by the draftsman?
- What is the standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases involving capital punishment?
- Vadiyya S. Khalil and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division and others2020 IHC 15 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges notifications issued by the Government of Pakistan terminating the appointments of the petitioners as Chairperson and Members of the Competition Commission of Pakistan (C.C.P.) prior to the expiration of their statutory three-year terms. The core legal questions involve whether a statutorily fixed tenure of office can be prematurely curtailed by the executive without invoking the specific removal and disqualification procedures prescribed by the governing statute, and whether the Federal Government can rescind such appointments under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 on the ground of alleged irregularity in delegation. The Islamabad High Court held that the C.C.P. is a quasi-judicial body whose members hold tenure posts protected by statute, and their appointments cannot be arbitrarily terminated outside the specific provisions of Section 14(6) and Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2010. The Court established that an appointing authority cannot take advantage of its own procedural irregularities to the detriment of appointees, and that general powers under the General Clauses Act cannot override special statutory tenure protections. The petition was allowed and the termination notifications were set aside.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Government can prematurely curtail the statutory tenure of the Chairperson and Members of the Competition Commission of Pakistan without following the removal procedure prescribed under Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2010?
- Can the Federal Government rescind or terminate tenure appointments under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, when a special statute provides specific grounds and procedures for removal?
- Whether an appointing authority can take advantage of its own alleged irregularity in the appointment process to terminate the services of an appointee holding a fixed-term statutory post?
- Vaddiya S. Khalil and others vs Faderation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 460 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, appointed as Chairperson and Members of the Competition Commission of Pakistan for a three-year statutory tenure, challenged the Federal Government's notifications terminating their appointments prematurely. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government could unilaterally curtail a fixed statutory tenure, particularly when the government alleged the initial appointment process was flawed due to improper delegation of authority. The Court held that the termination notifications were unlawful. It reasoned that the Competition Act, 2010, provides a specific mechanism for the removal of Members and the Chairperson, requiring proof of disqualification under Section 14(6) and adherence to procedural safeguards in Section 19. The Court affirmed that the government cannot benefit from its own procedural irregularities or lapses in the appointment process to justify premature termination. Furthermore, the Court established that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, cannot be invoked to override specific statutory tenure provisions. Consequently, the premature termination of the petitioners' appointments, without following the mandatory statutory procedure, was declared to be without lawful authority and set aside.
Questions settled- Can the Federal Government prematurely terminate a statutory tenure post without following the removal procedure prescribed by the governing statute?
- Does Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, authorize the government to rescind appointments made to a statutory tenure post?
- Is the government estopped from terminating an appointment on the ground of procedural irregularity where the government itself was responsible for that irregularity?
- Umer Tanveer Butt vs Muhammad Ibrahim and others2020 IHC 72, 2020 YLR 2269 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-04-16Read full judgment →
- Tufail Abbas Kazmi vs The State2020 YLR 2618 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of heroin and charas. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically addressing the impact of an unexplained five-day delay in transmitting samples for chemical analysis and the trial court's failure to present the recovered case property to the accused during his examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Islamabad High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The court held that the conviction was unsustainable due to procedural irregularities. Specifically, the unexplained delay in sending samples violated the 72-hour requirement under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, and the failure to put incriminating evidence—the recovered narcotics—to the accused during his Section 342 statement constituted a fatal flaw. The court reaffirmed the principle that mandatory procedural safeguards, including the proper examination of the accused regarding incriminating evidence, are essential to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples for chemical analysis vitiate a conviction?
- Is the failure to put recovered case property to an accused during his examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 fatal to the prosecution's case?
- Must the prosecution prove the safe custody of narcotic samples from the time of recovery until their transmission to the laboratory?
- The State vs Zafran Mehmood Satti2020 KLR Criminal Cases 387 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The State filed an appeal under Section 417(2), Cr.P.C., challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the Judicial Magistrate, Islamabad-East, in a case registered under Sections 13, 20, and 65 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The respondent was accused of possessing an unlicensed 30-bore pistol with six live cartridges. The trial court acquitted the respondent due to material contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimonies, failure to associate independent public witnesses from a thickly populated area during recovery, non-sealing of the recovered weapon at the spot, and the absence of a forensic/ballistic expert opinion on the weapon's functionality. The High Court, applying the principle of double presumption of innocence attached to an acquittal, found no perversity or misreading of evidence in the trial court's judgment. It reiterated that the benefit of doubt, even if arising from a single circumstance, must go to the accused as a matter of right, and the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Can an acquittal be interfered with if it is not found to be capricious, perverse, arbitrary, or based on misreading of evidence?
- Is it necessary for the prosecution to associate independent public witnesses during a recovery from a populated area?
- Is a conviction under the Arms Ordinance maintainable if the recovered weapon was not sealed at the spot and no forensic expert opinion on its functionality was obtained?
- Does the benefit of doubt go to the accused as a matter of right, even if only a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt?
- What is the standard for interference in an appeal against acquittal compared to an appeal against conviction?
- The State vs Malik Amin Aslam & others2020 IHC 134 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a show-cause notice issued by the Islamabad High Court regarding the persistent mismanagement of the Marghazar Zoo and the failure of the Ministry of Climate Change and the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board to ensure the welfare of endangered animal species. Despite previous court directives mandating the relocation of animals to appropriate sanctuaries and establishing joint liability for their wellbeing, the authorities failed to prevent the inhumane treatment and subsequent death of endangered animals. The core legal question addressed is whether the acts and omissions of the responsible officials, which resulted in irreversible harm to these animals, constitute a violation of the Court’s prior judgment and warrant contempt proceedings. The Court held that the respondents' failure to adhere to judicial mandates regarding the protection of endangered species, leading to continued suffering and death, prima facie attracts proceedings under the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. The Court emphasized the legal obligation of state authorities to protect endangered wildlife and directed the respondents to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for their non-compliance.
Questions settled- Does the failure to comply with court directives regarding the protection of endangered species constitute grounds for contempt of court?
- Are the Ministry of Climate Change and the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board jointly and severally liable for the welfare of animals under their control?
- Can a show-cause notice be issued for acts and omissions that result in the death of endangered animals in violation of a court judgment?
- The Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan through its Secretary vs The Special Court through its Registrar2020 [M] C L R 1599, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 1 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- The Imperial Electric Company (Private) Limited through Chief Financial2020 CLC 760 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-09Read full judgment →
- Teradata Ireland Limited and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and 4 others2020 PTD 1316 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-02Read full judgment →
- Telconet Private Limited vs I.E.S.C.O. and others2020 IHC 44 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
- Telconet Private Limited vs I.E.S.C.O and others2020 CLC 1434, 2022 PCTLR 1665 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-14Read full judgment →
- Tariq Mahmood Shah vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 608 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two post-arrest bail petitions arising from FIR No. 10/19, involving allegations of large-scale embezzlement of IESCO funds through the creation of bogus billing scrolls and fake bank statements. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who were not initially named in the FIR and were implicated solely through supplementary statements of co-accused or witnesses, were entitled to bail. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail. It reasoned that the prosecution failed to recover incriminating material from the petitioners or establish a direct link to the alleged crime beyond the uncorroborated statements of co-accused. The court emphasized that the evidentiary value of such statements requires independent corroboration at the trial stage. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigation regarding the petitioners was complete, and the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the case against the petitioners warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Can an accused be granted bail when the prosecution's case relies solely on the uncorroborated statement of a co-accused?
- Does the absence of incriminating material recovered from an accused justify the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Are offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 eligible for post-arrest bail?
- Tariq Liaqat vs General Manager Human Resource of Mari Petroleum2020 PLC (C.S.) 1419 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a contract employee of Mari Petroleum Company Ltd., filed a constitutional petition seeking reinstatement and back-benefits after his services were terminated. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to reinstate an employee of a company where the relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant and the company's rules are non-statutory. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that Mari Petroleum Company Ltd. is a private limited company without controlling shares held by the Government of Pakistan, and its employment rules are non-statutory. Consequently, the relationship between the parties is purely contractual, governed by the principle of master and servant. The Court affirmed the principle that employees of such entities cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for reinstatement or termination disputes, but must instead seek remedies through a suit for damages in a court of plenary jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a contract employee of a company with non-statutory rules invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for reinstatement?
- Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of a company where the Government of Pakistan does not hold controlling shares?
- Is a writ petition maintainable for the reinstatement of an employee whose services were terminated under a contract of service?
- Tariq Ahmad Pathan, Udc (BPS 11 and 5 others vs Federal Board Of Revenue2020 PLC (C.S.) 1041 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) at the Federal Board of Revenue, challenged an office circular dated 28.10.2018 which abolished a waiting list for promotion to the post of Inspector. The petitioners, having passed the Departmental Promotion Examination under previous rules, argued that they had acquired vested rights to promotion that could not be extinguished retrospectively by the new rules. The respondents contended that the matter related to terms and conditions of service and was thus not maintainable before the High Court. The Court held that while a department has the prerogative to formulate new recruitment rules, it cannot retrospectively take away vested rights acquired by employees under previous rules. The Court determined that the controversy regarding the vires of the circular did not fall within the scope of 'terms and conditions of service' barred from judicial review. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent department to treat the petitions as representations and decide the matter in accordance with the law and the principle that vested rights cannot be abolished retrospectively.
Questions settled- Can a government department retrospectively abolish a waiting list for promotion to the detriment of employees who have already qualified under previous rules?
- Does a challenge to the vires of an office circular regarding promotion rules fall within the scope of 'terms and conditions of service' that would bar High Court jurisdiction?
- Do employees who have passed a departmental examination and are placed on a waiting list acquire a vested right to promotion?
- Tariq Ahmad Lodhi, Ex Deputy Assistant Director, Airport Security vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Aviation Division, Government of Pakistan and 2 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 427 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the dismissal of the petitioner, a former Airport Security Force (ASF) employee, seeking reinstatement and back benefits. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, inducted into service prior to the 1984 amendments, remained a civil servant governed by the Civil Servants Act 1973, or was subject to the Pakistan Army Act 1952, thereby ousting the High Court's writ jurisdiction. The Court held that the petitioner’s service was governed by the Pakistan Army Act 1952, pursuant to the ASF (Amendment) Ordinance 1984, which incorporated Chapter IV into the Airports Security Force Act 1975. Consequently, the Court determined that the disciplinary proceedings were valid and that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the statutory bar on jurisdiction under Section 7A(4) of the Airports Security Force Act 1975. The key principle laid down is that the specific provisions of the Airports Security Force Act 1975 and the Pakistan Army Act 1952 prevail over the general provisions of the Civil Servants Act 1973 regarding the terms and conditions of ASF personnel.
Questions settled- Are employees of the Airport Security Force governed by the Pakistan Army Act 1952?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to review disciplinary orders passed against Airport Security Force personnel?
- Do the provisions of the Airports Security Force Act 1975 prevail over the Civil Servants Act 1973 regarding the terms and conditions of service for Airport Security Force personnel?
- Syed Zameer Hussain Kazmi vs Chief Commissioner, ICT, Islamabad and others2020 IHC 136 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Syed Pervaiz Zahoor vs The Prime Minister of Pakistan, etc2020 PLD Islamabad 449, 2021 PLJ Islamabad 209, 2020 IHC 138 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-08-25Read full judgment →
- Syed Mohammad Mustahsan Bukhari and 2 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Ministry of Inter-Provincial Coordination, Islamabad and 12 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1585 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the adjustment and appointment of respondents Nos. 3 to 13 against vacant posts in the Pakistan Sports Board by the Ministry of Inter-Provincial Coordination. The core legal questions involved whether the Ministry was empowered to make or direct such appointments, and whether the Board could be dictated to absorb these contract employees. The court held that neither the Federal Government nor the Ministry had the jurisdiction to appoint or direct the appointment of personnel to the Board, as statutory powers for recruitment strictly vest in the Executive Committee for Grade 17 and above, and in the Director General for Grade 1 to 16, pursuant to the Sports (Development and Control) Ordinance, 1962 and the Pakistan Sports Board Rules, 1981. The court laid down the principle that statutory bodies must function strictly within the confines of their governing laws and that executive overreach or forced regularization of contract employees into autonomous statutory entities without statutory backing is void and ultra vires.
Questions settled- Whether the Ministry of Inter-Provincial Coordination has the jurisdiction to appoint or adjust contract employees against vacant posts of the Pakistan Sports Board?
- Does the power of the Federal Government to issue directions under Rule 17 of the Pakistan Sports Board Rules, 1981 extend to making appointments, transfers, or postings?
- Are employees of the Pakistan Sports Board considered civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Can executive authorities force an autonomous statutory entity to regularize project-based contract employees against its established posts without adhering to the parent statute and rules?
- Syed Amir Abbas Shah Kazmi vs Amir Rashid Malik and others2020 CLC 1964 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-23Read full judgment →
- Syed Altaf Hussain Shah, etc vs Multi Professional Cooperative Housing2020 [M] C L R 690 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Syed Altaf Hussain Shah etc vs Multi-Professional Cooperative Housing2020 CLC 1119, 2020 PLJ Islamabad 103 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a pre-emption suit originally decreed in favour of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, and subsequently modified on appeal in 1987. Years later, following failed transactions and NAB investigations regarding the suit land, Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside the consent judgment and decree. The appellate court entertained the application, invoking its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, leading to the instant revision. The core legal question concerned whether an application under Section 12(2) barred by limitation could be entertained and whether a judgment and decree passed under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 after the cut-off date established in landmark apex court jurisprudence was a nullity. The Islamabad High Court held that any judgment rendered under the said Act after 31.07.1986 is void and a nullity in light of the dictum in Malik Said Kamal Shah's case, and that courts possess inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 alongside revisional suo moto powers under Section 115 to rectify such illegalities. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a judgment and decree passed under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 after the cut-off date of 31.07.1986 is a nullity in view of the injunctions of Islam?
- Can an appellate court invoke Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside a void judgment and decree when an application under Section 12(2) is barred by limitation?
- What is the applicable period of limitation for filing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Does the High Court possess suo moto powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to correct an illegality or wrong when it comes to its notice?
- Syed Abid Hussain vs General Manager (Hr And a), PTCL and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 996 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenged an appellate court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's suit for recovery of service benefits, including POL and vehicle allowances, which were withheld by the respondent-PTCL during the petitioner's period of compulsory waiting for posting. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondent's appeal was time-barred, the admissibility of photocopied documents admitted by the respondent's witness, and whether PTCL could unilaterally alter the service conditions of transferred employees. The Court held that the appeal was filed within the limitation period and that photocopies, once admitted by the respondent’s witness at the trial stage, could not be challenged on appeal. Furthermore, the Court ruled that PTCL is statutorily prohibited from adversely modifying the terms and conditions of service of employees transferred from the erstwhile T&T department. Relying on Section 36 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996, the Court affirmed that these rights are protected and cannot be curtailed by internal office orders. Consequently, the appellate judgment was set aside, and the trial court's decree was restored.
Questions settled- Can photocopies of documents be challenged at the appellate stage if they were admitted as correct by the opposing party's witness during trial?
- Is the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited authorized to unilaterally alter the service conditions of employees transferred from the erstwhile T&T department?
- Does the period of compulsory waiting for posting constitute duty for the purpose of entitlement to service benefits?
- State through Advocate General ICT Islamabad vs Zafran Mehmood SattiPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 1427 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The State filed an appeal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the judgment of a Judicial Magistrate acquitting the respondent of charges under Section 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance 1965. The core legal questions involved whether the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the failure to seal the recovered weapon at the spot, and the lack of a ballistic expert's report to prove functionality vitiate the prosecution case, and under what circumstances an appellate court may interfere with an acquittal judgment carrying a double presumption of innocence. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, non-sealing of the weapon, absence of ballistic certification, and non-compliance with mandatory provisions regarding independent recovery witnesses. The court reiterated that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, and an acquittal judgment—protected by a double presumption of innocence—will not be interfered with unless it is perverse, capricious, or arbitrary.
Questions settled- Whether the non-sealing of an alleged recovered weapon at the spot and the absence of a ballistic expert's report render the prosecution case doubtful?
- Does the failure of police officials to associate independent witnesses from a populated locality violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What are the well-settled principles and grounds for an appellate court to interfere with an order of acquittal carrying a double presumption of innocence?
- Is a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind sufficient to entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
- Sikandar Hayat Maken vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2020 IHC 148, 2021 [M] CLR 358, 2022 KLR Labour & Service 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses multiple constitutional petitions filed by civil servants challenging their supersession to higher grades (BS-20 and BS-21) by the Central Selection Board and the subsequent approval by the Prime Minister under the Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019. The core legal questions involve the vires of the Rules of 2019, the justiciability and structure of subjective evaluation and marks assigned by the Board, and whether the petitioners' fundamental rights were violated due to alleged arbitrariness, lack of due process, and absence of an opportunity to be heard regarding adverse material. The Court held that promotion does not constitute a vested right, eligibility is distinct from fitness, and the subjective evaluation of fitness by an expert Selection Board based on structured objective criteria is not open to substitution by a court under judicial review. Furthermore, the Rules of 2019 were validly framed in consonance with previous superior court judgments, and the petitioners failed to establish mala fide or rebut the presumption of regularity attached to official acts. The petitions were consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant has a vested right in claiming promotion or being considered under particular promotion rules?
- Does the evaluation of fitness and suitability for promotion by the Central Selection Board fall within the exclusive domain of the executive and remain non-justiciable before a court or tribunal?
- Whether the Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019 are ultra vires the Constitution and the principles enunciated by the superior courts?
- Is a civil servant entitled to a right of audience or to be confronted with intelligence or adverse reports considered by the Selection Board during promotion evaluations?
- Sher Shah Malik vs The Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation and another2020 PLC (C.S.) 1267, 2020 IHC 76, 2020 PLJ Islamabad 171 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition concerns the entitlement of former Radio Pakistan employees, transferred to the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (P.B.C.) under the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act, 1973, to receive medical allowance benefits equivalent to those granted to civil servants. The core legal question was whether these employees, despite ceasing to be civil servants upon transfer, retained their right to service benefits, including medical allowances, as protected by the statutory guarantee in Section 12 of the 1973 Act. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the medical allowance. The ratio is that Section 12 of the 1973 Act provided a statutory assurance that transferred employees would retain the same terms and conditions of service they enjoyed prior to the transfer. Consequently, the P.B.C. could not unilaterally deny benefits that were otherwise applicable to civil servants. The key principle laid down is that where a statute mandates the transfer of employees on the 'same terms and conditions' as their previous employment, the employer is legally bound to extend subsequent government-announced benefits, such as medical allowances, to those transferred employees.
Questions settled- Are employees transferred from Radio Pakistan to the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation under the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act, 1973, entitled to the same medical allowance benefits as civil servants?
- Does the statutory protection of 'same terms and conditions' in Section 12 of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act, 1973, require the Corporation to extend government-announced benefits to transferred employees?
- Can the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation deny service benefits to transferred employees on the grounds that they ceased to be civil servants upon transfer?
- Shell Pakistan Limited vs Registrar Trade Unions and others2020 PLC 57 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the order of the Registrar Trade Unions registering a trade union within the petitioner's establishment. The petitioner, a public limited company, contended that the union members were employees of third-party service providers, not the company, and thus lacked the legal status to form a union within the petitioner's establishment. The core legal question was whether workers engaged through contractors at an establishment qualify as "workers" entitled to form a trade union under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and whether such registration is permissible while the employment status is contested before the National Industrial Relations Commission. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the definition of "worker" under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 encompasses those employed through contractors. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court affirmed that workers performing permanent functions at an establishment are deemed employees of the principal company, rendering outsourcing arrangements often a mere pretence. The key principle laid down is that the right to form a trade union extends to workers employed through contractors within an establishment, provided they perform functions integral to the company's operations.
Questions settled- Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 grant an employer the right to appeal against an order of the Registrar Trade Unions registering a trade union?
- Are workers employed through a contractor or service provider entitled to form a trade union within the principal establishment?
- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have the jurisdiction to order the regularization of employees?
- Can a trade union be registered in an establishment while a grievance petition regarding the employment status of its members is pending before the National Industrial Relations Commission?
- Sheikh Imran Haque vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry2020 PLD Islamabad 177 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-26Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Anser Aziz Mayor Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior Islamabad and 2 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1132 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a constitutional petition challenging the suspension of the Mayor of the Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad, who was suspended for ninety days by the Ministry of Interior based on recommendations from the Local Government Commission. The core legal question was whether the suspension was lawful given the petitioner's claim that he was denied a fair hearing and that the proceedings were conducted in violation of due process. The Court held that the suspension notification was prima facie illegal because the petitioner was not confronted with the specific allegations, nor was he afforded an opportunity to defend himself regarding the additional agenda item that led to the recommendation. Emphasizing the principle of Audi Alteram Partem and the constitutional right to due process under Article 10-A, the Court suspended the operation of the notification pending final adjudication. The judgment establishes that a Local Government Commission is legally bound to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to a public office holder before recommending their suspension, and that proceedings conducted in a concealed or deceptive manner without proper confrontation of allegations are unsustainable.
Questions settled- Is a Local Government Commission required to provide an opportunity of hearing to a Mayor before recommending their suspension?
- Can a suspension order based on an agenda item added in the absence of the affected party be sustained?
- Does the failure to confront a public official with allegations before recommending their suspension violate Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Shehzadi Fatima Ali vs Nadia Asghar and 2 others2020 CLC 1181 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
- Shehzad Ahmed vs Zafar alias Zafri and 4 others2019 PCr. L J 1497, 2020 KLR Criminal Cases 101 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses multiple criminal appeals and a capital sentence reference arising from the abduction of a victim for ransom. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through ocular evidence, victim testimony, ransom recovery, and identification parades, and whether the offence attracted the provisions of anti-terrorism laws. The court held that the testimony of the abducted victim, corroborated by other reliable evidence, conclusively proved the guilt of three appellants for abduction and ransom, warranting the confirmation of their convictions under the Pakistan Penal Code. However, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish all necessary ingredients to attract anti-terrorism charges, thus setting aside the convictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The key principles laid down include that an abductee's testimony carries substantial evidentiary value unless strongly discredited, and that anti-terrorism provisions require specific statutory ingredients distinct from ordinary heinous crimes.
Questions settled- What is the evidentiary value of an abductee's testimony in cases of kidnapping and abduction?
- Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of the deposition of a solitary witness?
- Whether the offence of abduction for ransom automatically attracts section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 without proof of specific statutory ingredients?
- Shaukat Hussain Bhatti & another vs Khalid Latif & others2021 MLD 497, 2020 IHC 84 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
- Shahzad Khan vs The State & another2020 P Cr. L J 1449, 2020 IHC 88 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the appellant's conviction for murder and robbery under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Islamabad High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution's case was riddled with incurable defects. The court found the presence of eyewitnesses highly doubtful due to their abnormal conduct, specifically their failure to provide first aid or transport the victim to the hospital. Furthermore, significant contradictions existed between the medical evidence—notably the absence of a bullet hole in the victim's clothing—and the prosecution's narrative. The court also highlighted the lack of forensic corroboration, as the Forensic Science Laboratory report was either withheld or inconclusive regarding the weapon of offence. Additionally, the court noted that the identification parade was flawed, and the trial court failed to distinguish the appellant’s role from co-accused who were acquitted on the same evidence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, emphasizing that the prosecution must prove its case without relying on doubtful evidence.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce a conclusive forensic report regarding the weapon of offence?
- Does the failure of eyewitnesses to provide first aid to a victim cast doubt on their presence at the scene of the crime?
- Is a conviction valid if the trial court fails to distinguish the role of the appellant from co-accused who were acquitted on the same evidence?
- Can an identification parade be considered reliable if witnesses were shown photographs or video footage of the accused prior to the proceedings?
- Shahnaz Parveen and another vs Javed Yaqoob and others2020 MLD 638 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular first appeal was filed by the appellants against a consolidated judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad, which had decreed respondent No.1's suit for declaration and partially decreed his suit for possession through partition. The dispute concerned a residential plot allotted to the deceased's second wife (respondent No.2) as his nominee after his death. The deceased was only a member of the housing society at his death, and no plot had been allotted to him during his lifetime. The core legal question was whether a plot allotted to a nominee after the member's death forms part of the deceased's estate for inheritance, and whether respondent No.1 was entitled to a share. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court's decree. The Court held that since the plot was not allotted during the deceased's lifetime and was paid for by the nominee, it did not form part of the deceased's estate. Furthermore, respondent No.1's contradictory pleadings and 27-year delay disentitled him to equitable relief.
Questions settled- Whether a plot of land allotted to a nominee after the death of a society member forms part of the deceased's estate for the purposes of inheritance?
- Does the nomination of a person by a member of a cooperative housing society automatically make that nominee the sole owner of a plot allotted after the member's death if the nominee paid the costs?
- Can a plaintiff who takes contradictory positions in their pleadings and evidence be granted the discretionary and equitable relief of declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
- Shahina Masood and 9 others vs Federal Ombudsman Secretariat2020 PLC (C.S.) 186 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated petition challenged the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman for Protection Against Harassment of Women at Workplace in entertaining complaints that did not involve sexual harassment. The core legal question was whether the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at Workplace Act 2010 extends to general workplace grievances or is strictly limited to 'harassment' as defined in Section 2(h) of the Act. The Court held that the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction is confined to the specific definition of 'harassment' provided in the Act, which necessitates that the alleged conduct, attitude, or act be of a sexual nature. The Court ruled that the Ombudsman had grossly misinterpreted the statute by extending its scope to non-sexual workplace disputes, such as breach of contract or general hostility. Consequently, the Court declared the proceedings in the subject petitions illegal and without lawful authority, emphasizing that statutory bodies must operate strictly within the parameters defined by the legislature. The principle established is that where a statute provides an exhaustive definition of a term, that definition cannot be expanded by the implementing authority.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'harassment' under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at Workplace Act 2010 include non-sexual workplace grievances?
- Is the definition of 'harassment' provided in Section 2(h) of the Protection Against Harassment of Women at Workplace Act 2010 exhaustive?
- Can the Ombudsman for Protection Against Harassment of Women at Workplace assume jurisdiction over matters involving breach of contract or general workplace hostility?
- Shahid Mehmood vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 1195 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a judgment of acquittal passed by a Judicial Magistrate regarding an alleged offence of cheque dishonour. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically the existence of a valid financial liability and the dishonest issuance of the cheque. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. It held that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of any financial liability, noting that the complainant’s testimony was vague and contradictory. Furthermore, the Court observed that the cheque did not belong to the accused's account, and the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had signed it. The Court reiterated that in an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is doubled. It affirmed that for Section 489-F to apply, the prosecution must prove the issuance of the cheque, dishonest intention, and the existence of a lawful obligation. The Court concluded that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.
Questions settled- What are the essential ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment where the prosecution evidence is contradictory and fails to establish the accused's liability?
- Is the benefit of doubt in criminal cases a matter of grace or a matter of right for the accused?
- What is the standard of proof required to overturn an acquittal in a criminal appeal?
- Shahid Mehmood vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 1157 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Islamabad, whereby Respondent No. 2 was acquitted under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the ingredients of an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including the existence of a valid financial liability, issuance of the cheque by the accused with dishonest intention, and proof of signatures. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the financial liability or the issuance of the cheque by the accused, and that material contradictions existed in the prosecution evidence. The court reaffirmed the principles governing appeals against acquittal, noting that a double presumption of innocence is attached to an acquittal judgment, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused.
Questions settled- What are the essential conditions that must be fulfilled and proved by the prosecution to attract the provisions of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What are the well-settled principles for the appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an acquittal where a double presumption of innocence is attached?
- Does a failure by the prosecution to prove that the disputed cheque was signed and issued from the account of the accused entitle the accused to an acquittal?
- How does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind affect the guilt of an accused person?
- Shabnam Ashraf, Proprietor Of Preparatory School, Islamabad vs The Director (HQ) I&I-Ir, Directorate General Of Intelligence And Investigation Ir and 5 othersPTCL 2021 CL. 338, 2020 PTD 1917 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-16Read full judgment →
- Shabnam Ashraf, Proprietor of preparatory School, Islamabad vs The Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue, Audit Unit-III, Zone-I, Regional Tax Office (Rto), Islamabad and 3 others2021 PLJ Islamabad 65, 2020 PTD 1917, PTCL 2021 CL.563, 2020 PTD 1670 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shabnam Ashraf vs Deputy Commissioner & others2020 IHC 106 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-02Read full judgment →
- Shabnam Ashraf Proprietor of Preparatory School, Islamabad vs The Director (HQ) I & I-Ir, etc2020 IHC 104 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2020 IHC 130 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-08-03Read full judgment →
- Sarfaraz Khan and others vs Chief Of Air Staff (Pakistan Air Force), Islamabad and others2020 PLD Islamabad 428 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns intra-court appeals challenging the dismissal of writ petitions by a Single Judge, who had declined jurisdiction under Article 199(3) of the Constitution regarding the removal of Pakistan Air Force personnel for alleged homosexual activities. The core legal question was whether the constitutional bar on judicial review of Armed Forces service matters precludes intervention when due process and fundamental rights are violated. The Court held that the bar under Article 199(3) is not absolute and does not preclude judicial review where actions are mala fide, coram non judice, or lack jurisdiction. Finding that the removal proceedings relied on evidence obtained through torture, lacked corroboration, and failed to meet the fairness standards mandated by Article 10-A of the Constitution, the Court set aside the impugned judgment. The Court established that administrative removal orders must comply with due process, and the protection of fundamental rights overrides the jurisdictional bar in Article 199(3) when authorities act arbitrarily or without legal basis, necessitating that such removals be reconsidered without stigma.
Questions settled- Does the bar under Article 199(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 prevent judicial review of administrative removal orders from the Armed Forces where fundamental rights are violated?
- Are proceedings of a Board of Inquiry under the Pakistan Air Force Act 1953 subject to judicial scrutiny regarding compliance with due process?
- Can an administrative removal from service be sustained if the underlying evidence was obtained through physical torture?
- Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 apply to administrative proceedings within the Armed Forces?
- Sana Aizad and others vs Additional District Judge VII/Guardian Appellate2020 PLJ Islamabad 113, 2020 CLC 879 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-24Read full judgment →
- Saira Rubab Nasir, etc vs President of Pakistan, etc2020 IHC 28, 2020 PLJ Islamabad 195, 2020 [M] C L R 1232 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-11Read full judgment →
- Safoora Hussain vs The Secretary, Establishment Division,Government Of Pakistan, Islamabad and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1492 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition concerns the claim of a Cataloger (BPS-10) in the Ministry of Human Rights for up-gradation to the post of Librarian (BPS-17), citing a lack of promotion avenues and comparing her position to similar roles in other departments. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had a vested right to such up-gradation based on the Establishment Division’s policies and the principle of non-discrimination. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the Ministry to evaluate the petitioner’s case regarding her duties, qualifications, and the absence of promotion avenues, and to transmit the matter to the Establishment Division if necessary. The Court held that up-gradation is a policy-driven administrative act, not a vested right, and is distinct from promotion. It emphasized that up-gradation requires proof of departmental restructuring or public interest exigency. Furthermore, the Court established that discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution cannot be the sole ground for claiming up-gradation, and that high courts should exercise restraint in such matters, as up-gradation falls within the executive domain of the government.
Questions settled- Is up-gradation of a post a vested right of the incumbent?
- Can discrimination be pleaded as a valid ground for the up-gradation of a post?
- Is up-gradation of a post distinct from promotion under service law?
- Under what circumstances can a government post be upgraded?
- S.M. Tariq Khawaja vs Registrar Cooperative Societies, Islamabad and 32021 [M] C L R 761, 2020 CLC 653 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-12-17Read full judgment →
- Rizwan Ashraf and another vs Federation of Pakistan, through its Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 02 others2021 [M] C L R 1333, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 605, 2020 IHC 18 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued by the National Police Bureau and the Ministry of Interior regarding the selection of police officials for United Nations Peacekeeping Missions. The petitioners contended that the SOPs were discriminatory, imposed unauthorized provincial and organizational quotas, and violated the United Nations' own selection guidelines. Furthermore, they argued that the National Police Bureau lacked the competence to issue such policies without the Prime Minister's approval, as required by the Rules of Business, 1973. The Court held that the SOPs were illegal and without lawful authority. It emphasized that while courts generally do not interfere in policy matters, they must intervene when policies violate fundamental rights or statutory requirements. The Court found the quota system discriminatory, violating Article 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, which guarantees equal opportunity in public service. The judgment established that any such policy must be transparent, non-discriminatory, and sanctioned by the competent authority, ensuring that merit is not bypassed by arbitrary quotas that exclude qualified candidates from fair competition.
Questions settled- Does the imposition of provincial and organizational quotas for selection to United Nations Peacekeeping Missions violate Article 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a government policy that is discriminatory and lacks approval from the competent authority be struck down by the High Court?
- Is the National Police Bureau a competent authority to unilaterally issue policy guidelines for overseas peacekeeping mission selections without the Prime Minister's approval?
- Does the right to enter a lawful profession under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include the right to compete for public service appointments on the basis of merit?
- Riaz Hanif Rahi vs Federation Of Pakistan an others2020 PLD Islamabad 175 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
- Rasool Khan and others vs Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary, Ministry of Information and Technology and others2020 IHC 38 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns writ petitions filed by retired employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) who were originally employees of the Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department. The core legal question is whether these 'departmental employees' are entitled to pensionary benefits, including periodic increases, medical allowances, and other retirement benefits, commensurate with those granted by the Federal Government to civil servants, despite their transfer to a corporate entity. The Court held that while these employees ceased to be civil servants upon transfer, their terms and conditions of service were statutorily protected by the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991 and the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996. Consequently, the Court ruled that these employees are entitled to the same pensionary and retirement benefits as civil servants. The Court affirmed that denying these benefits would violate the statutory protections against adverse alteration of service conditions. However, the Court clarified that this relief does not extend to employees who joined PTCL after the 1991 Act or those who opted for Voluntary Separation Schemes.
Questions settled- Are employees of the former Telegraph and Telephone Department transferred to PTCL entitled to the same pension increases as Federal Government civil servants?
- Does the transfer of departmental employees to a corporate entity under the 1991 and 1996 Acts deprive them of their protected service conditions?
- Can employees of PTCL who were hired after the enactment of the 1991 Act invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court regarding their terms of service?
- Does the status of 'civil servant' persist for departmental employees after their transfer to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited?
- Rashid Ahmed vs Muhammad Masood and another2020 P Cr. L.J 1126 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an acquittal judgment passed by a Judicial Magistrate in a criminal case involving Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the respondent issued a cheque for loan repayment which was dishonored. The core legal question was whether the issuance of a guarantee cheque, later dishonored, constitutes an offence under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, given the underlying contractual dispute. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of the offence, specifically the 'dishonest intention' (mens rea) required for conviction. It found that the cheque was issued as a guarantee for construction work rather than for loan repayment, rendering the matter essentially civil in nature. The Court affirmed that mere dishonour of a cheque does not automatically constitute a criminal offence under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, without proof of fraudulent intent. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is doubled, and interference is only warranted if the judgment is perverse or based on misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Does the mere dishonour of a cheque issued as a guarantee constitute an offence under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is proof of dishonest intention (mens rea) a prerequisite for conviction under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What are the principles governing the interference of an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal?
- Can a dispute regarding the rendition of accounts arising from a construction contract be converted into criminal litigation under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Rao Abdul Waheed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division and others2020 [M] C L R 403, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 13 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a BS-19 officer of the Frequency Allocation Board (F.A.B.), filed a writ petition seeking directions for the payment of his salary and admissible allowances for the period between 30.08.2010 and 21.08.2015, during which he served as a deputationist in various departments and reported back upon repatriation, but was denied entry and salary until his compulsory retirement. The primary legal issue was whether a deputationist whose terms were not explicitly settled is entitled to pay protection matching his parent department, and whether withholding an employee's salary during administrative delays or security clearances violates fundamental constitutional rights. The Islamabad High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the terms of deputation cannot be varied to an employee's detriment without settlement between borrowing and lending authorities, and non-payment of salary violates the right to life and livelihood under Article 9 and dignity under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court apportioned salary liabilities among the Board of Investment, Cabinet Division, and F.A.B. according to respective periods.
Questions settled- Is a deputationist employee entitled to protection of the salary package applicable in their parent department?
- Does the non-payment or withholding of an employee's earned salary violate the fundamental right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution?
- Can a parent department deny salary to a repatriated employee on the ground of pending security clearance or lack of actual work performed?
- Rana Muhammad Arshad vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2021 PLD Islamabad 42, 2020 IHC 160 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-03Read full judgment →
- Rafaqat Hussain Raja and others vs Mujib-ur-Rehman Kiani2020 CLC 1989, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 51 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-03Read full judgment →
- Rab Nawaz and others vs Rusmat Ali2020 PLD Islamabad 293, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 26 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-04Read full judgment →
- PTV and others vs Abdul Sattar2020 MLD 1985, 2020 IHC 110 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-23Read full judgment →
- Private School Association Islamabad vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 CLC 1658, 2020 IHC 40 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-28Read full judgment →
- Petroleum Exploration (Private) Ltd vs Federal Government Of Pakistan2020 PLD Islamabad 214 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-30Read full judgment →
- Parvaiz Akhter Bhatti vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2020 IHC 146, 2022 CLD 731 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-17Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Sugar Mills Association and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 IHC 132 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan Sugar Mills Association & 17 others vs Federation of Pakistan2020 IHC 102 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan Railways through CEO vs Member, NIRC, etc2020 IHC 52 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-13Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Railway through CEO/Sr. General Manager Pakistan Railways2020 PLC 184 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition assails interim orders passed by a learned Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) suspending transfer and posting orders of private respondents, summoning officers, and initiating contempt proceedings. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of the writ petition and whether interlocutory orders passed by the NIRC are appealable to its Full Bench under Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, given the temporary non-availability of the Full Bench due to a lack of quorum. The court held that Section 58(2)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, does not exclude interlocutory orders from the appellate jurisdiction of the Full Bench, unlike other specific statutes containing express bars. The court further held that where the statutory appellate forum is non-functional for want of quorum, the High Court may exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to prevent a party from being left remediless during the interim period. Consequently, the impugned orders were suspended pending the availability of the Full Bench of the NIRC, establishing the principle that interlocutory orders of the NIRC are appealable to its Full Bench and that constitutional jurisdiction may be invoked when the statutory appellate forum lacks a quorum.
Questions settled- Are interlocutory orders passed by a bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission appealable to the Full Bench under Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
- Does Section 58 of the IndustrialRelations Act, 2012 expressly exclude interlocutory orders from the appellate jurisdiction of the Full Bench?
- Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction against NIRC orders when the Full Bench is non-functional for want of quorum?
- Do executive position holders challenging their transfer orders prima facie fall within the definition of a workman before the NIRC?
- Ovex Technologies (Private) Limited vs PCM PK (Private) Limited and others2021 KLR Civil Cases 20, 2020 PLD Islamabad 52, 2020 CLD 15 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nizabat Mehmood vs State2021 YLR 27, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 1755 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of narcotics. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of recovery proceedings and the integrity of the chain of custody for the contraband. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court identified glaring contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses concerning the timing of the arrest and the recovery process. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the samples to the chemical examiner, as the official responsible for the transit was not produced as a witness. Additionally, the Court noted that when multiple pieces of narcotics are recovered, representative samples must be taken from each piece for valid chemical analysis. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing that material contradictions and a broken chain of custody are fatal to the prosecution's case.
Questions settled- Does a failure to produce the official responsible for transmitting contraband samples to the chemical examiner break the chain of custody?
- Are material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the time and circumstances of an arrest sufficient to create reasonable doubt?
- Is it necessary to take representative samples from each separate piece of recovered narcotic substance for a valid chemical analysis?
- Nauman Azhar vs Celavs Private Limited through Authorized Officer and others2020 CLC 675 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
- National Institutional Facilitation Technologies (Pvt.) Limited through duly2020 [M] C L R 1634, 2020 PLD Islamabad 378 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two writ petitions challenging the Federal Board of Revenue's (F.B.R.) decision to grant a five-year license to Messrs National Radio and Telecommunication Corporation (N.R.T.C.) for establishing and operating a track and trace system for tobacco products. The petitioners, competing bidders, assailed the F.B.R.'s acceptance of N.R.T.C.'s post-bid clarification to correct its financial bid from Rs.0.731 to Rs.731 per 1,000 stamps. The core legal questions revolved around the maintainability of a petition by a consortium member, the scope of judicial review over concluded contracts, the permissibility of altering bids under Public Procurement Rules, and the validity of contradictory legal opinions from the Law Division. The Court held that the process for allowing N.R.T.C.'s bid correction suffered from material irregularity and unreasonableness, setting aside the license award and the grievance redressal committee's decision, and allowing the F.B.R. to initiate a fresh bidding process.
Questions settled- Is a writ petition filed by one member of a consortium maintainable when challenging a public contract award?
- Can a High Court interfere with a concluded contract in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Can a procuring agency allow a bidder to alter or modify its financial bid after bids have been opened under Rule 31 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004?
- Is a legal opinion from the Law Division, which is based on irrelevant case law and contradicts a prior opinion, a valid basis for a public authority's decision?
- Can a procuring agency waive a material error in a financial bid that fundamentally changes the quoted amount after bids have been opened?