Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 4,389 judgments in total from the Islamabad High Court.

• Sara Noor vs Addl. District Judge, etc.2014 C.L.R. 87 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-12-05Read full judgment →
• Sara Noor vs Additional District Judge and others2014 C.L.R. 87, 2014 CLC 528 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-12-05Read full judgment →
• Samar Abbas vs Sikandar and 3 others---Re43ondents2014 YLR 1618 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-12-18
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationmala fiderecovery of crime weapontentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from a petition filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge in case F.I.R. No. 234 dated 3-7-2013 registered under sections 337-F(V), 354, 506(II), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Bhara Kahu, Islamabad. The core legal question revolves around whether pre-arrest bail was rightly granted without evaluating the presence of mala fide, the existence of a fracture, and the need for recovery of the crime weapon. The Islamabad High Court held that the lower court failed to consider pivotal aspects such as the absence of apparent mala fide, the serious nature of the injury resulting in a fracture, and the necessity of physical custody for recovering the crime weapon. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and cancelled the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents, laying down that pre-arrest bail requires apparent mala fide and proper evaluation of the material record including recovery needs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted without establishing an element of mala fide on the part of the complainant?
  • Does failure to consider a documented fracture and the need for recovery of a crime weapon vitiate an order granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Can an order granting pre-arrest bail be set aside if the lower court fails to make a tentative assessment of the available record?
  Read full judgment →
• Saad Jan vs F.B.I.S.E. and others2014 MLD 41 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-09-11Read full judgment →
• S.J. Industries through Sheikh Javed Rafi vs Privatization Commission, Ministry of Finance Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others2014 PLC (C.S.) 1267 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-06-02
  privatizationpast and closed transactionGolden Hand Shakecollective bargaining agentconstitutional petitionlabour rightsjurisdiction of commission
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, having purchased Crescent Factories Vegetable Ghee Mills, challenged a notice issued by the Privatization Commission requiring the production of documents regarding 'Golden Hand Shake' payments made to employees. The petitioner contended that the matter was a past and closed transaction, citing a previous resolution of claims by twenty workers through the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, and argued that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to probe these payments. The core legal question was whether the Privatization Commission could legally demand information regarding employee payments despite the petitioner's claim of a settled transaction and an agreement with the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA). The Court held that the petition was devoid of merit, noting that the Commission had only issued a notice for information, not a final adverse order. The Court further held that an agreement between the employer and the CBA does not preclude individual workers from agitating their grievances, and the Commission retains the authority to seek information, as the previous litigation involved only twenty workers and did not foreclose the rights of others.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement between an employer and a Collective Bargaining Agent preclude individual workers from agitating their grievances regarding employment dues?
  • Can a party challenge a notice for the production of documents as a 'past and closed transaction' before any final adverse order is passed?
  • Does the Privatization Commission have the authority to seek information from a purchaser regarding employee payments after the sale of a state-owned entity?
  Read full judgment →
• Roomana Gul Kakar, Deputy Secretary vs Secretary National Assembly of Pakistan, etcK.L.R. 2014 Civil Cases 142 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Roomana Gul Kakar vs National Assembly Secretary of Pakistan and othersK.L.R. 2014 Civil Cases 142, 2014 PLC (C.S.) 929 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-12-09
  deputationrepatriationcivil servicedepartmental inquirypremature repatriationconsultation requirement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Assistant Professor on deputation to the National Assembly Secretariat, challenged her premature repatriation to her parent department in Balochistan. The core legal question was whether the Secretariat could unilaterally repatriate a deputationist before the expiry of their tenure without consulting the provincial government, particularly while departmental inquiry proceedings were pending against the officer. The Court held that the repatriation order was illegal. The Court reasoned that the applicable rules required consultation with the provincial government prior to premature repatriation. Furthermore, the Court found that because the repatriation order was conditional upon the petitioner's continued participation in an ongoing inquiry in Islamabad, it was practically and legally inconsistent to repatriate her to Balochistan while simultaneously requiring her presence for proceedings in Islamabad. Consequently, the Court set aside the notification. The key principle laid down is that a deputationist cannot be prematurely repatriated without the mandatory consultation with the parent provincial government, and such repatriation is improper when it conflicts with the officer's obligation to participate in pending departmental inquiries at the deputation site.

  Questions settled

  • Can a deputationist be prematurely repatriated to their parent department without consultation with the provincial government?
  • Is it legally permissible to repatriate a civil servant while departmental inquiry proceedings are pending against them at the deputation site?
  • Does the requirement for a deputationist to attend inquiry proceedings at the deputation site preclude their immediate repatriation?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed vs Government of Pakistan and others2014 PLD Islamabad 29 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-09-09
  Exit Control ListECLfreedom of movementright to travel abroadfundamental rightsimpounding of passportdue processconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 was filed by the petitioner challenging the placement of his name on the Exit Control List (ECL) and the impounding of his passport as arbitrary, mala fide, and illegal. The petitioner, who worked in Qatar for 19 years, was intercepted at the airport upon returning to Pakistan based on undisclosed recommendations alleging involvement in anti-state activities, despite security agencies finding nothing against him during investigations. The court considered whether the government could restrict a citizen's fundamental right to travel abroad indefinitely without specific grounds, due process, or an active trial. The Islamabad High Court accepted the petition, holding that freedom of movement and the right to travel abroad are fundamental rights under Articles 4, 9, and 15 of the Constitution. The court laid down that mere vague allegations without substantiating evidence or a pending trial cannot justify an indefinite restriction on a citizen's freedom of movement, and administrative authorities must resolve such matters fairly and promptly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether placing a citizen's name on the Exit Control List without specific grounds or due process violates fundamental rights under Articles 4, 9, and 15 of the Constitution?
  • Can the right of a citizen to travel abroad be curtailed for an indefinite period on mere unproven allegations of security risks?
  • Are government authorities under an obligation to decide public representations and ECL removal applications within a reasonable timeframe?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehan Ali vs Ministry of, Technical Professional2014 PLC (C.S.) 516 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-07-05
  regularizationcontract employeenon-statutory ruleswrit petitionpublic servantconcealment of factsmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant constitutional petition was filed seeking regularization, confirmation, and absorption of the petitioner, who was appointed as a Dispatch Rider on a contract basis, challenging the inaction of the respondents. The core legal questions involved whether a writ petition is maintainable for contractual employees whose department lacks statutory service rules, whether employees designated as public servants under a statute can invoke writ jurisdiction for regularization, and whether the petitioner had concealed material facts regarding prior litigation. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the service rules of the respondent department (National Vocational and Technical Training Commission) were non-statutory and unapproved by the Government, that the Cabinet Sub-Committee had exempted contract and daily wage employees from regularization, and that public servant status does not automatically equate to entitlement to civil servant remedies or writ jurisdiction, particularly when material facts regarding prior proceedings before the Labour Court and representations to the Prime Minister were concealed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable for the regularization of a contractual employee whose department does not possess statutory service rules?
  • Does the designation of department employees as public servants under a statute bring them within the ambit of civil servants entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction for employment disputes?
  • Does the concealment of prior litigation before a Labour Court and pending representations disentitle a petitioner from seeking discretionary constitutional relief?
  • Can contract or daily wage employees claim a vested right to regularization when the competent authority has exempted them from such policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehan Ali vs Ministry of Technical Professional through Secretary and 3 others2014 CLC 503 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-07-05
  regularizationcontract employeenon-statutory rulesconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionpublic servantmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant constitutional petition was filed seeking the regularization, confirmation, and absorption of the petitioner, who was initially appointed as a Dispatch Rider on a temporary contract basis by the respondent department. The core legal questions involved whether a contractual employee whose service rules are non-statutory can invoke writ jurisdiction for regularization, and whether the petitioner was entitled to regularization under government policy despite the discontinuation of his services and concealment of material facts. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent department's service rules were non-statutory and unapproved by the government, that contract employees of the department were exempt from regularization per Cabinet decisions, and that writ jurisdiction is not maintainable in the absence of statutory rules or a violation of a vested legal right. The key principle laid down is that contractual or daily wage employees governed by non-statutory rules cannot claim regularization as a matter of right through constitutional petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a contractual employee whose service rules are non-statutory can invoke writ jurisdiction for regularization?
  • Does the classification of department employees as public servants under section 15 of the National Vocational and Technical Training Commission Act, 2011 make them civil servants entitled to file a writ petition?
  • Can contractual or daily wage employees claim regularization as a matter of right when service rules and cabinet policy exempt them?
  • Does the suppression of material facts, such as pending proceedings before a Labour Court, disentitle a petitioner to discretionary relief in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad, Chairman, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority2014 NLR Service 26, 2014 C.L.R. 608 · Islamabad High Court
  natural justiceaudi alteram partemPEMRAwrongful removaldue processvoid ab initiocivil serviceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the summary removal of the petitioner from the post of Chairman, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA). The core legal question was whether the government could remove the petitioner without a show-cause notice or an opportunity of hearing, based on allegations that his initial appointment was void ab initio due to procedural irregularities. The Court held that the removal order was illegal and set it aside, ordering the petitioner's restoration. The ratio establishes that the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), are mandatory before taking adverse action against a public official, regardless of allegations regarding the validity of their appointment. The Court further laid down the principle that the government cannot penalize an individual for procedural lapses or irregularities committed by the department itself during the appointment process. Consequently, while the authorities retain the right to initiate proceedings, they must strictly adhere to due process and provide the affected individual a fair opportunity to defend themselves before any removal can be legally effected.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public official be removed from service without a show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing, even if their initial appointment is alleged to be void ab initio?
  • Is a government department permitted to penalize an individual for procedural irregularities in an appointment process that were committed by the department itself?
  • Does the principle of natural justice apply to the removal of a tenure-based appointee in an autonomous regulatory body?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry2014 NLR Service 26 · Islamabad High Court
  natural justiceaudi alteram partemstatutory appointmentPEMRAvoid ab initiodue processwrit jurisdictionremoval from service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged his removal from the post of Chairman, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), contending that the government terminated his services without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity for a hearing. The respondents argued that the petitioner’s appointment was void ab initio due to procedural irregularities and that the government had the authority to review appointments in autonomous bodies. The core legal question was whether the removal of a statutory appointee without a hearing violates the principles of natural justice, and whether the government can retrospectively terminate an appointment based on its own alleged procedural lapses. The Court held that the removal was illegal, emphasizing that the petitioner was condemned unheard. It ruled that while the government may review appointments, it cannot bypass due process or the right to a fair hearing. The Court set aside the notification of removal and the appointment of the respondent as Acting Chairman, affirming that the government cannot benefit from its own procedural irregularities to terminate an employee without adhering to audi alteram partem.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government remove a statutory appointee from office without providing a show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing?
  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply when the government alleges an appointment was void ab initio due to procedural irregularities?
  • Can the government rely on its own procedural lapses during an appointment process to justify the subsequent removal of an appointee?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an order of removal that was not formally communicated to the petitioner but was widely reported in the press?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao Fahd Ali Khan vs The State and another2014 P Cr. L J 1071 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-04-21
  writ petitionanti-terrorism courtjurisdiction of magistratetransfer of casefinal reportcognizance of offense
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this writ petition, the petitioner sought to set aside an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Islamabad, and to have the case sent to the Anti-Terrorism Court for trial. The core legal question involved the proper procedure for a Judicial Magistrate when a section exclusively triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court, specifically section 365-A, P.P.C., is sought to be added during proceedings, and whether a Sessions Judge or Magistrate can directly transfer or refer such cases without following statutory provisions. The Islamabad High Court held that a Judicial Magistrate is not empowered under section 227, Cr.P.C. to add an offense exclusively triable by a Special Court, nor can a Sessions Judge directly transfer or send a case to an Anti-Terrorism Court without following the procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code or special enactments. The Court laid down the principle that where an offense is exclusively triable by a Special Court like the Anti-Terrorism Court, the Magistrate must return the FIR and final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. to the prosecution for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Judicial Magistrate empowered under section 227, Cr.P.C. to add an offense exclusively triable by a Special Court?
  • Can a Sessions Judge transfer or send a case directly to a court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What is the proper procedure for a Magistrate when an offense appears to be exclusively triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Does a Sessions Court have the authority to take direct cognizance of an offense not triable by it?
  Read full judgment →
• Rakhshinda Habib vs Federation of Pakistan and others2014 PLC (C.S.) 247 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-06-13
  civil servicepromotionbest of the best policylachesrecurring losslegal heirspensionary benefitswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the widow of a deceased civil servant, challenging the supersession of her late husband from promotion to BS-21. The petitioner contended that her husband was denied promotion based on the 'best of the best' policy, which had been declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The respondents argued that the petition suffered from laches and that the deceased did not meet the criteria of excellence and comparative merit. The Islamabad High Court observed that the deceased had attained the required threshold for promotion, and the policy used to deny his promotion had been struck down by the Supreme Court. Regarding the objection of laches, the Court held that the financial loss caused to the petitioner was a recurring loss, thus negating the plea of laches. The Court concluded that while the deceased could not be promoted posthumously, his legal heirs were entitled to the financial benefits of the promotion. Consequently, the respondents were directed to reconsider the deceased's case for promotion and extend relevant benefits to his heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petition challenging the denial of promotion based on a policy later struck down by the Supreme Court suffer from laches if the financial loss is recurring?
  • Can the legal heirs of a deceased civil servant claim the financial benefits of a promotion that the deceased was denied during his lifetime?
  • Is the 'best of the best' policy for civil service promotion legally valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Sohail vs Sikandar Khan Asj and 2 others2014 P Cr. L J 1236 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-03-24
  criminal revisioncase diaryrefreshing memorycross-examinationinvestigating officerpolice diariesinspection of documents
  Summary & questions settled

  Through the instant criminal revision petition, the petitioner challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge regarding the use of case diaries during the cross-examination of an Investigating Officer. The core legal question revolved around whether the defence counsel can compel a witness to refresh memory from case diaries and whether the defence is automatically entitled to inspect such case diaries under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Islamabad High Court held that case diaries are meant for the progress of investigation and can be used by the Court to aid in inquiry or trial, or by a police officer to refresh memory, but neither the accused nor their agent is entitled to call for or inspect them merely because they are referred to, unless specific conditions under the law are met. The Court disposed of the petition, clarifying the limited scope and permissible use of case diaries during judicial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can the accused or their agent claim a right to inspect police case diaries merely because they are referred to during a trial?
  • What is the scope and permissible use of case diaries by a court and a witness under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Under what circumstances can a witness refresh memory from a document and when is the opposing counsel entitled to access that document under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Mustafa Kamal vs Federation of Pakistan throughSecretary2014 PLD Islamabad 123 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-06-24
  quo warrantopublic officejudicial reviewstructured discretiongood governanceconflict of interesttransparent recruitmentpublic sector organization
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a senior employee of the Pakistan Television Corporation Limited (PTVC), invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court through a writ of quo warranto to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 3 as the Managing Director of PTVC. The core legal question centered on whether the recruitment process for a public office was conducted in a fair, transparent, and competitive manner in accordance with the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the statutory framework governing public sector organizations. The Court held that the appointment process was manipulated, non-transparent, and vitiated by tailored advertisements, false declarations regarding liabilities, and an arbitrary exercise of discretion by the executive authority. Consequently, the notification appointing respondent No. 3 was set aside, and the authorities were directed to reinitiate the selection process afresh. The key legal principles laid down emphasize that public offices are sacred trusts, the discretionary powers of the executive must be structured and exercised reasonably, and the recommendations of selection commissions established pursuant to apex court directions are binding.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the process of recruitment and appointment to a public office is amenable to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does a writ of quo warranto suffer from the bar of laches given that holding a public office unlawfully is a continuing wrong?
  • Are the recommendations made by the Federal Commission for Selection of Heads of Public Sector Organizations (FCHPSO) binding upon the competent appointing authority?
  • Whether an appointing authority can exercise unfettered and unstructured discretion in disregarding the order of merit established by a selection commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadeer Alias Teeran vs The State2014 NLR Criminal 301 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-06-19
  narcotics recoveryrepresentative sampleprocedural discrepancycriminal appealsentence reductionburden of proofControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged possession of 15 kilograms of crushed poppy heads. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the recovery and the nature of the contraband beyond a reasonable doubt, given discrepancies in the testimony of recovery witnesses regarding the weighing and sampling process. The Court held that the prosecution's evidence was materially flawed because the witnesses failed to detail the recovery proceedings, and the 10-gram sample taken from the 15-kilogram bulk was not a representative sample. The Court emphasized that because the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 prescribes stringent punishments, the prosecution must strictly adhere to procedural safeguards to ensure transparency and proof. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, noting his status as a first-time offender.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of recovery witnesses to detail the weighing and sampling process in a narcotics case create reasonable doubt?
  • Can a 10-gram sample taken from a 15-kilogram bulk of crushed poppy heads be considered a representative sample?
  • Must the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be construed strictly regarding procedural requirements for recovery and proof?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Beverages Company (Pvt.)Ltd. through Fayyaz Hussain vs Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Economic Affairs and 3 othersPLJ 2014 Tax Cases (Isl.) 47 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd., Islamabad vs Addl. Commissioner (Unit-2014 P.C.T.L.R. 131 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited vs Pakistan2014 PLD Islamabad 79, 2014 CLD 610 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-02-26Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mobile Communication Limited vs Additional Commissioner2014 P.C.T.L.R. 651 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-07-10Read full judgment →
• Omv Pakistan Exploration vs Commissioner of Inland Revenue and othersPLJ 2014 Tax Cases (Isl.) 64 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ocean Petroleum Ltd. Etc. vs Federation of Pakistan, Etc.2014-IHC-86 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-09-30Read full judgment →
• Nosheen Agha vs Addl.District Judge, Etc2014-IHC-120 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-12-02Read full judgment →
• Noor Azad Khan vs Federation of Pakistan2014 PLC (C.S.) 1255 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-06-21
  writ petitiondepartmental proceedingspromotionhouse rent ceilingservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter involves a writ petition filed by Noor Azad Khan against the Federation of Pakistan, concerning the pendency of departmental proceedings acting as a hurdle to his promotion, alongside the unauthorized stoppage of his house rent ceiling. The core legal question revolved around whether pending departmental proceedings that constitute a stigma should be expedited and whether illegally withheld financial benefits ought to be released. The Islamabad High Court held that the respondents must conclude the pending departmental proceedings within one month and immediately release all withheld benefits, including the house rent ceiling. The key principle laid down is that the executive authorities are bound to finalize pending disciplinary proceedings expeditiously to prevent prejudice to an employee's career progression and cannot arbitrarily withhold legitimate financial entitlements without adopting due process of law.

  Questions settled

  • Can pending departmental proceedings that act as a hurdle to promotion be expedited by the court?
  • Whether financial benefits such as the house rent ceiling can be stopped without adopting a legal course?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Win Pipe Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs Additional Collector, etc.2014 P.C.T.L.R. 692 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-07-03Read full judgment →
• M/s. Svra Pme CNG, etc. vs Federation of Pakistan through its SecretaryK.L.R. 2014 Civil Cases 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-02-03Read full judgment →
• M/s. Premier Kadanwari Development Company Ltd. vs The Customs,NLR 2014 Tax 22 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Premier Kadanwari Development Company Ltd vs Customs, CentralPTCL 2014 CL.231 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Win Pipe Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Additional Collector, etc.2014-IHC-62 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-07-03Read full judgment →
• M/s Travel Waljis (Pvt) Limited. vs Commissioner Appeals, Income Tax,2014-IHC-101 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-11-06Read full judgment →
• M/s Shifa International Hospitals Ltd. etc. vs Nadeem Akhtar2014-IHC-20 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-07-03Read full judgment →
• M/s Arslan Poultry (Pvt) Limited vs Officer Inland Revenue, Etc.2014-IHC-174 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-09-05Read full judgment →
• Murad Amir Shah vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 901 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-04-15
  quashing of ordertrial jurisdictionsessions courtmagistrate powersacid throwingsentencing limits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Islamabad High Court through a petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the order of the Sessions Judge West, Islamabad, dated 18-5-2013, whereby a criminal case involving Section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was sent back to the Judicial Magistrate for trial. The core legal question revolves around the jurisdiction of a Judicial Magistrate Section 30 to try an offence carrying a minimum sentence of fourteen years imprisonment. The court held that since Section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 prescribes a minimum punishment of fourteen years, which exceeds the sentencing powers of a Magistrate under Section 34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Consequently, the impugned order of the Sessions Judge was set aside and the petition was accepted, directing that the case be entrusted to the Sessions Judge for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Judicial Magistrate Section 30 has the jurisdiction to try an offence where the minimum punishment exceeds seven years imprisonment?
  • Can a Sessions Judge send a case triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions back to a Judicial Magistrate for trial?
  • What is the proper forum for the trial of an offence under Section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ahmad Siddiqui and others vs Umar Abbasi2014 YLR 63 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-06-17
  criminal miscellaneousillegal dispossessionlocus standitenant possessionnecessary partyreview of order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. was filed before the Islamabad High Court by the petitioner, who claimed to be a lawful tenant of the disputed shop, assailing an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing his application for an appropriate order on the ground of lack of locus standi and the bar under section 369, Cr.P.C. The core legal question revolved around the entitlement of a third-party tenant claiming possession during ongoing illegal dispossession proceedings and execution matters to be heard and impleaded as a party. The Court held that since the petitioner admitted to being in possession of the disputed property from the date of the alleged second dispossession, he was a necessary party who ought to be impleaded in the pending complaint. The impugned order was accordingly set aside, and the Additional Sessions Judge was directed to proceed with the complaint after arraying the petitioner as a respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a third-party claimant alleging possession of a disputed property has locus standi to be impleaded as a respondent in proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Does Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 bar the entertaining of an application that seeks to alter or review an earlier order in criminal proceedings?
  • Can an aggrieved person claiming tenancy rights over a disputed shop be denied an opportunity of hearing when execution and illegal dispossession complaints are being adjudicated?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior, Islamabad2014 PLD Islamabad 31 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahid Khan Khattak vs Judge Family Court and others2014 CLC 1439 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waseem alias Padri vs The State through Tahir Niazi S.-I.2014 P Cr. L J 1205 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-04-24
  post-arrest bailnarcoticschemical examiner reportfurther inquirysampling procedurefalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 2150 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the procedural irregularities in the recovery and the lack of forensic evidence. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated due to personal enmity and highlighted that the prosecution failed to specify the quantity taken from each packet for sampling and failed to obtain a chemical examiner's report despite a significant lapse of time. The Court held that the absence of a chemical analysis report, combined with the ambiguity regarding the sampling process, rendered the prosecution's case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that the failure to obtain a chemical examiner's report within a reasonable timeframe, alongside procedural defects in sampling, constitutes sufficient grounds to treat a narcotics case as one of further inquiry, thereby entitling the accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to obtain a chemical examiner's report in a narcotics case within a reasonable time entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can procedural irregularities in the sampling of recovered contraband constitute grounds for treating a case as one of further inquiry?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when there is ambiguity regarding the quantity of narcotics taken from specific packets for chemical analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Malik vs Pakistan2014 C.L.R. 487, 2014 PLD Islamabad 38, 2014 PLC (C.S.) 685 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-01-13
  statutory tenuretermination simplicitermala fideconstitutional petitionNADRA Ordinancepublic appointmentcolourable exercise of powerdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Chairman of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), challenged his premature removal from office via a constitutional petition. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government could terminate a statutory appointee holding a fixed three-year tenure under the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, through a 'termination simpliciter' clause in a contract, without adhering to the statutory removal procedure. The court held that the impugned notifications were illegal, void, and tainted with mala fides. It ruled that the petitioner’s tenure was protected by the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, and could only be terminated for specific reasons—such as incapacity or misconduct—following a proper inquiry, as mandated by Section 3(12) of the Ordinance. The court emphasized that statutory provisions regarding tenure cannot be overridden by private contractual terms or executive discretion. Furthermore, it laid down the principle that the executive cannot circumvent statutory removal procedures by labeling an action as 'termination for convenience' or by appointing an acting head without legal basis, especially when such actions appear to be a colorable exercise of power aimed at victimization.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Government terminate the services of a statutory appointee holding a fixed tenure under the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, through a termination simpliciter clause?
  • Does a contractual agreement between a statutory body and its appointee override the statutory procedure for removal prescribed by the governing Ordinance?
  • Is the appointment of an acting head to a statutory position permissible when the governing statute does not explicitly provide for such an arrangement?
  • Can a court set aside an executive order of removal if it finds the action to be a colorable exercise of power tainted with mala fides?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Malik vs Pakistan through Secretary Establishment2014 C.L.R. 487 · Islamabad High Court
  statutory tenuretermination simplicitermala fideNADRAadministrative lawdue processnatural justiceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the premature termination of the petitioner from his position as Chairman of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA). The core legal question was whether the Federal Government could terminate the Chairman’s services through a 'termination simpliciter' clause in his contract, despite the statutory tenure protection provided under the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000. The Court held that the petitioner’s appointment was governed by the Ordinance, which prescribes specific grounds and procedures for removal. The Court determined that the termination was a 'colourful exercise' of power, tainted by mala fides, and lacked due process. It emphasized that statutory tenure cannot be overridden by contractual terms or executive whims. Consequently, the Court set aside the notification of termination, ruling that the removal of a head of a statutory body must strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed by the governing statute, and that arbitrary removal without cause or hearing violates fundamental principles of administrative law and natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Government terminate the services of the Chairman of a statutory body through a 'termination simpliciter' clause in a contract, notwithstanding statutory tenure protections?
  • Does the premature removal of a statutory appointee without following the procedure prescribed in the governing statute constitute a 'colourful exercise' of power?
  • Is a contractual agreement between an employer and employee valid if it overrides the express provisions of a governing statute?
  • Can an acting or 'look after' charge be assigned to a position where the law does not expressly provide for such an appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Malik vs Pakistan through Secretary Establishment2014 PLD Islamabad 38 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-01-13
  statutory tenuretermination simpliciterdue processmala fideconstitutional petitionNADRAservice lawjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the premature termination of the petitioner from his position as Chairman of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA). The core legal question was whether the services of a statutory appointee, whose tenure is prescribed by the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, could be terminated via 'termination simpliciter' without adhering to the specific removal procedures mandated by the statute. The Court held that the petitioner’s appointment was governed by the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, which provides a fixed three-year tenure, and that the government could not override this statutory protection through contractual clauses or arbitrary executive action. The Court found the termination notification to be a colorable exercise of power, tainted by mala fides, and issued without due process. Consequently, the Court set aside the termination notification and the subsequent appointment of an acting Chairman. The judgment reaffirms the principle that statutory tenure holders cannot be removed without following the due process of law, including the right to a fair hearing, and that executive discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily to bypass statutory safeguards.

  Questions settled

  • Can the services of a statutory appointee with a fixed tenure be terminated via 'termination simpliciter' without following the statutory removal procedure?
  • Does a contractual clause allowing for termination without cause override the statutory protections afforded to a public office holder?
  • Is the premature termination of a statutory head of an autonomous body subject to judicial review if the action is found to be mala fide?
  • Can an executive authority appoint an acting head to a statutory position where the law does not explicitly provide for such an arrangement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tanveer vs The State through Anees-ul-Arfeen2014 P Cr. L J 1096 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-03-26
  post-arrest bailvicarious liabilitycommon intentionfurther inquirymurdercriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under sections 302, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an F.I.R. where the petitioner was alleged to be present at the scene of a murder committed by a co-accused. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s mere presence at the scene, without an overt act such as firing or facilitating the crime, warranted the denial of bail based on vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, reasoning that the prosecution failed to attribute any specific role to the petitioner beyond mere presence. The Court observed that the recovered weapon was not loaded, further casting doubt on the petitioner's active participation. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner’s case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that mere presence at the scene of a crime, without evidence of a specific overt act or facilitation, creates reasonable doubt regarding vicarious liability, justifying the grant of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere presence at the scene of a crime without an overt act establish vicarious liability sufficient to deny bail?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the prosecution's case requires further inquiry into the extent of the accused's participation?
  • Can the recovery of an unloaded weapon from an accused create reasonable doubt regarding their involvement in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakeel vs Abid Zulfiqar and others2014 P Cr. L J 202 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-10-16
  constitutional petitionsuperdarivehicle seizureabuse of powerpolice misconductcivil disputeillegal seizurecustody of propertyarbitrary action
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged lower court orders concerning the 'Superdari' (interim custody) of a vehicle seized by police. The core legal question was whether the police action, purportedly under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was lawful when it involved seizing a vehicle from the petitioner's showroom and handing it over to a complainant, despite the matter appearing to be a civil dispute arising from an exchange of vehicles and payments. The High Court held that the police action was arbitrary, motivated, unprecedented, and based on irrelevant considerations, amounting to an abuse of authority and a facilitation of an illegal snatching of the vehicle. The court found that the police official acted as a 'ruffian' instead of a custodian of law, intervening in a concluded agreement that should have been resolved through civil courts. Consequently, the High Court set aside the lower court orders, directing the vehicle's return to the petitioner, and ordered an inquiry into the police conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Can police legally seize property under Section 550, Code of Criminal Procedure, to intervene in a civil dispute?
  • Are lower courts obliged to scrutinize the manner in which property was seized by police when passing 'Superdari' orders?
  • Does police action to seize property on behalf of a complainant in a civil matter constitute an abuse of authority?
  • Can a constitutional court set aside lower court orders for 'Superdari' if the initial police seizure was illegal or arbitrary?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Federation of Pakistan2014 PLC (C.S.) 1084 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-02-19
  Senior Management Coursecivil servant promotionmandatory training leave policyabsence from trainingwrit petitionFederal Board of Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by a civil servant in BPS-19 challenging his withdrawal from the 12th Senior Management Course and the consequent denial of consideration for promotion to BS-20. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioner's absence exceeding the permissible seven-day limit under the training institution's Leave Policy warranted his ouster from the course, and whether the respondents acted arbitrarily or without lawful authority in withdrawing him. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner remained absent for over twenty-three days without proper intimation or justification, thereby violating the mandatory attendance requirements of the Leave Policy, and noting that the policy itself remained unchallenged. The court established that missing training days beyond the stipulated threshold due to absence without intimation justifies withdrawal from a mandatory promotional course, which serves as a valid prerequisite for promotion consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Does absence from a mandatory Senior Management Course beyond the stipulated seven-day limit justify withdrawal from the course?
  • Whether failure to intimate a training institution regarding prolonged absence constitutes grounds for adverse administrative action?
  • Is a training institution's Leave Policy regarding attendance violations binding upon civil servants nominated for promotion courses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajjad, etc. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2014 C.L.R. 1518 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-09-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raza and others vs Jammu and Kashmir Co-operativeK.L.R. 2014 Civil Cases 349 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz alias Doctor vs The State2014 YLR 1924 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-01-08
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquiryabscondencedelayed FIRvicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Nawaz, in a case involving charges of murder under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the delayed nomination in the F.I.R. and the principle of consistency, despite allegations of abscondence and prior criminal involvement. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, finding that the case against him requires further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court observed that the petitioner was nominated only after a significant delay of 56 days, and that the co-accused, who held an identical role, had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court. The court established the principle that mere abscondence, in the absence of other material evidence connecting the accused to the crime, is insufficient to deny bail. Furthermore, the rule of consistency dictates that an accused is entitled to bail if a co-accused with an identical role has already been granted the same relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused with an identical role has been granted bail?
  • Is mere abscondence sufficient ground to refuse bail in the absence of material evidence connecting the accused to the crime?
  • Does a delayed nomination in a supplementary statement render a case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jazib Roomi and another vs Federal Public Service2014 PLC (C.S.) 48 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-08-21
  CSS Competitive ExaminationProvincial quotaAll-Pakistan Open MeritFederal Public Service CommissionService mattersAllocation of vacanciesAdministrative policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against the Federal Public Service Commission's (FPSC) rejection of the appellants' selection in the CSS Competitive Examination 2010. The core legal question was whether the FPSC’s methodology for allocating vacancies—specifically the interplay between All-Pakistan Open Merit seats and provincial/regional quotas—was lawful. The appellants contended that Open Merit seats should be treated as an exclusive pool, separate from provincial quotas, and that they were entitled to additional seats. The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the FPSC’s allocation method strictly complied with the Establishment Division’s Office Memorandum dated 28-11-1973. The Court affirmed that vacancies in each grade must be considered separately for allocation across departments and offices. It rejected the appellants' interpretation, ruling that the FPSC correctly distributed seats across various groups and services to ensure equitable provincial representation. The judgment establishes that provincial quotas are not to be calculated by 'clubbing' Open Merit seats in the manner proposed by the appellants, and that the FPSC’s allocation policy is legally sound and designed to prevent the monopolization of higher service groups by specific provinces.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Establishment Division OM dated 28-11-1973 require vacancies to be allocated separately for each department, office, or institution?
  • Can candidates demand the exclusion of All-Pakistan Open Merit seats from the calculation of provincial quota entitlements?
  • Is the Federal Public Service Commission legally justified in allocating vacancies across various groups and services to ensure equitable provincial representation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 418 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-11-21
  qatl shibh-e-amdfree fightsudden occurrenceenhancement of sentencealteration of convictionbenefit of doubtmedical discrepancies
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arose from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, whereby the appellant Muhammad Irshad was convicted under section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to 10 years as tazeer along with diyat for the death of Mst. Ayesha Bibi, while other co-accused were acquitted. The core legal questions involved whether the conviction under section 316 for qatl shibh-e-amd was sustainable in the context of a sudden, unpremeditated free fight involving mutual injuries, and whether the sentence warranted enhancement to qatl-e-amd under section 302. The Islamabad High Court held that where a fight occurs suddenly without pre-meditation and involves mutual injuries without weapon recoveries, section 316 is inapplicable, altering the conviction to section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while maintaining the original sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding qatl shibh-e-amd does not apply to sudden free fights lacking pre-meditation and specific intent established by weapon recovery and consistent medical evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applies to a death resulting from a sudden, unpremeditated free fight?
  • Can a conviction under section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to section 302(c) when the occurrence is a sudden affray with mutual injuries?
  • Does the absence of weapon and blood recovery from the spot weaken the prosecution's case regarding pre-meditation?
  • Whether an appellate court can alter a conviction from qatl shibh-e-amd to qatl-e-amd under section 302(c) while maintaining the original sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan vs The State, Etc.2014-IHC-44 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-08-12
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequenon-prohibitory clausecriminal liabilitycivil recoverySection 489-F PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case. The court held that the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court reiterated the established principle that bail in such cases is a rule and refusal is an exception, applicable only in extraordinary circumstances like risk of abscondence, evidence tampering, repetition of the offence, or previous conviction. The court found no such exceptional circumstances, noting that the investigation was complete, the petitioner had no prior convictions, and the criminal proceedings were not a substitute for civil recovery remedies. The court granted bail, emphasizing that the amount involved does not override the general rule favoring bail in non-prohibitory offences.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be utilized as a mechanism for the recovery of money?
  • What are the exceptional circumstances that justify the refusal of bail in cases falling under the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran Sheikh vs The State through Si, P.S. Shalimar, Islamabad2014 P Cr. L J 22 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-05-27
  narcotics recoverymaterial contradictionsbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealexclusive possessionacquittalControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of charas. The core legal question before the Islamabad High Court was whether material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of recovery witnesses regarding the search and seizure vitiate the prosecution's case. The court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution regarding the recovery of narcotics was highly discrepant and unreliable, failing to establish exclusive possession beyond a reasonable doubt. The ratio decidendi is that in cases involving stern sentences under special statutes like the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, the prosecution must prove its case through strict compliance and unimpeachable evidence, and any single reasonable doubt arising from material contradictions must be resolved in favor of the accused. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt and acquitting him.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions in the statements of recovery witnesses are sufficient to discard the prosecution case in narcotics matters?
  • Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 require strict construction and proof due to the stern sentences provided?
  • Can an accused be convicted for narcotics possession when the recovery evidence is tainted with discrepancies regarding the seized substance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abid Farooq vs The State and anotherK.L.R. 2014 Criminal Cases 442 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-09-02
  post-arrest bailnon-prohibitory clausecriminal breach of trustfair trialpresumption of innocencehabitual offenderprevious conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, concerning an alleged breach of trust regarding a loan transaction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in an offence falling within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly when facing other criminal cases and a prior conviction. The Islamabad High Court held that the transaction appeared prima facie to be of a civil nature, making it a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2), and that the mere registration of other cases or a previous conviction does not automatically disentitle an accused to bail or negate the fundamental presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The petition was consequently allowed, and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a loan transaction involving a failure to repay prima facie constitute a case of further inquiry under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Whether the mere registration of multiple cases or a previous conviction in another case is sufficient to deny post-arrest bail in a separate proceeding?
  • How does the constitutional right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 apply to an accused facing multiple criminal prosecutions?
  • Can criminal proceedings be utilized as a coercive mechanism for the recovery of civil debts?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zeba Samin Arain vs Rent Controller (West), Islamabad etc.2014 C.L.R. 851 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-02-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zeba Samin Arain vs Rent Controller (West), Islamabad and others2014 C.L.R. 851, 2014 CLC 1291 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-02-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shazia Zafar and others vs Family Judge, Islamabad and 2 others2014 PLD Islamabad 113 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-05-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sadia Azam vs Muhammad Arif Mian, etc.K.L.R. 2014 Civil Cases 342 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-06-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sadia Azam vs Muhammad Arif Mian and otherssK.L.R. 2014 Civil Cases 342, 2014 YLR 363 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-06-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nomail Zia vs Adnan Riaz2014 CLC 87 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-09-16
  dissolution of marriageKhulabridal giftsrejection of plaintres judicatajurisdiction of Family Courtrecovery of gold ornaments
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a family dispute where the petitioner-wife obtained a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula. During the Khula proceedings, the respondent-husband claimed the return of gold ornaments (bridal gifts) or their value, but the trial court decreed the dissolution while directing the husband to seek his remedy through a proper legal forum. The husband subsequently filed a fresh suit for the recovery of the gold ornaments. The wife's application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. was initially accepted by the trial court on the grounds of res judicata. However, the appellate court reversed this decision and remanded the case. The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, holding that the husband's claim for recovery of gold ornaments constitutes 'bridal gifts' under Section 2(a) of the Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Furthermore, the Court ruled that since the husband's claim was not decided on its merits in the previous suit, the subsequent suit was not barred by the principle of res judicata.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a husband's claim for the recovery of gold ornaments given to his wife during marriage constitutes 'bridal gifts' falling within the jurisdiction of the Family Court?
  • Does a previous court order directing a party to seek a remedy in a proper forum, without deciding the claim on its merits, operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. on the ground of res judicata if the previous decision did not address the merits of the controversy?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maham Shabbir vs Salman Haider and others2014 CLC 330 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-10-09
  interim custodyguardians and wardswrit jurisdictionfamily courtinterlocutory orderwelfare of minorejusdem generis
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an interim order passed by a Guardian Judge granting custody of minors to the father. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of an appeal against an interim order passed by a Family Court and the scope of the High Court's writ jurisdiction over such interlocutory orders. The Court held that the terms 'decision given' and 'decree passed' in Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, are ejusdem generis, meaning appeals lie only against final judgments, not interim orders. However, the High Court retains writ jurisdiction to correct orders suffering from illegality, excess of jurisdiction, or misreading of evidence. The Court found that the trial judge erred by deciding the merits of the custody dispute—specifically regarding the mother’s character and second marriage—without recording evidence. Emphasizing that temporary custody under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, must prioritize the minor's welfare without preempting final adjudication, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is an interim order passed by a Family Court appealable under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Can a High Court exercise writ jurisdiction to interfere with an interlocutory order of a Family Court?
  • Should a court decide the merits of a permanent custody dispute while adjudicating an application for interim custody under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Nasim Gul vs Capital Development Authority2014 CLC 1764 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-06-06Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Samia Safdar vs National University of Modern Languages2014 PLD Islamabad 3 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-05-14Read full judgment →
• Montage Design Build vs The Republic of Tajikistan, Etc.2014-IHC-77 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-11-12Read full judgment →
• Miss Zakia Naurin and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2014 PLC (C.S.) 609 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-12-31
  regularizationcontract employeesdaily wagesdiscriminatory treatmentconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsautonomous bodiesCabinet Sub-Committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves numerous writ petitions filed by contract and daily wage employees across various federal ministries, divisions, attached departments, and autonomous bodies seeking regularization of their services pursuant to the Federal Government Policy of 2011. The core legal questions concern whether the Government's Regularization Policy applies to employees of specific statutory bodies, project-based organizations, and higher grades, and whether the selective regularization of certain employees while ignoring similarly situated petitioners violates the constitutional guarantee of equality. The Islamabad High Court held that the Regularization Policy of the Federal Government is generally applicable to all attached departments, autonomous bodies, and project employees meeting the criteria, and that selective treatment of similarly situated employees constitutes unlawful discrimination. The court laid down the principle that the state and its instrumentalities cannot mete out discriminatory treatment to similarly placed employees in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, and directed that the cases of all petitioners be immediately forwarded to the Cabinet Sub-Committee for consideration and decision in accordance with the policy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government's Regularization Policy applies to contract and daily wage employees working in autonomous bodies and attached departments?
  • Does the selective regularization of certain employees while excluding similarly situated employees violate Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can constitutional petitions be maintained against non-statutory service rules when the grievance is based on discriminatory treatment rather than enforcement of service terms?
  • Are project-based employees and staff of bodies like the Higher Education Commission and Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority entitled to the benefit of the government regularization policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Mirza Saeed Akhtar Baig vs The State2014-IHC-50 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-08-21
  post-arrest bailnon-prohibitory clauseco-accused statementQanoon-e-Shahadat Ordercriminal procedurebail principles
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Mirza Saeed Akhtar Baig, in a criminal case registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 467, 419, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was implicated solely based on the statement of a co-accused, and the only potentially applicable offence, Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, falls within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the statement of a co-accused to the police cannot be used as evidence against another accused under Article 38 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle that bail is the rule for offences falling within the non-prohibitory clause, absent exceptional circumstances such as risk of abscondance, tampering with evidence, repetition of the offence, or a history of prior convictions. Consequently, the bail application was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the statement of a co-accused made to the police be used as evidence against another accused?
  • Should bail be granted as a rule for offences falling within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the exceptional circumstances under which bail may be refused for offences falling within the non-prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Ministry of Inter Provincial Coordination vs Major (Retd.) Ahmad Nadeem2014 C.L.R. 536 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ministry of Inter Provincial Coordination vs Major (R) Ahmad Nadeem2014 CLC 600 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-01-15
  Intra-Court Appeallocus standitrichotomy of powersexecutive authorityquo warrantointerim reliefcorporate bodypolicy matternatural justicePakistan Cricket Board
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) arose from a challenge to the Constitution of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) and the appointment of its Chairman. A learned Single Judge had struck down Part-IV (Articles 28-31) of the PCB Constitution as person-specific and void, removed the incumbent Chairman (Chaudhry Muhammad Zaka Ashraf), and ordered elections. The Division Bench examined whether the Single Judge exceeded the jurisdiction of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Court held that the Single Judge erred by granting final relief at an ad-interim stage without notice and by substituting personal whims for legal reasoning. It was determined that the petitioner lacked locus standi as no personal legal right was infringed. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the judiciary cannot prescribe qualifications for executive posts or interfere in government policy matters unless they violate fundamental rights. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment, declared the subsequent interim management notifications as temporary stopgap arrangements, and restored the Chairman to his position, validating interim actions taken by the Board.

  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Yousuf Zia vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 3 others2014 PTD 393 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-05-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Yz CNG Station through Sole Proprietor vs Employees' Old Age2014 NLR Labour 9 · Islamabad High Court
  constitutional petitionemployees old age benefitsunilateral registrationdemand noticeland revenue recoverynatural justiceremand
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, running a CNG station, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court challenging the unilateral registration and demand notices issued by the Employees' Old Age Benefits Institution under the Employees' Old Age Benefits Act, 1976, along with recovery proceedings under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. The core legal question was whether a statutory authority can unilaterally determine employee strength and levy contributions through presumptive facts and mechanical assessments without conducting a proper inquiry and affording an opportunity of hearing. The court held that the respondent institution exercised its authority in an arbitrary and whimsical manner without a definite conclusion regarding the employee strength. The petition was allowed, the impugned orders and notices were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent institution to hold a proper inquiry, provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and determine the applicability of the Act strictly in accordance with law based on un-rebutted evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory authority determine employee strength and levy contributions through presumptive facts without a proper inquiry?
  • Whether registration of an establishment under the Employees Old Age Benefits Act, 1976 can be done unilaterally without affording an opportunity of hearing?
  • Is a statutory body permitted to proceed in a mechanical fashion when assessing contributions from an employer?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Win Pipe Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Additional Collector and others2014 P.C.T.L.R. 692, 2014 PTD 1915 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-07-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shifa International Hospital Ltd. and others vs Nadeem Akhtar2014 MLD 1515 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-06-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mega Sign and others vs Capital Development Authority and others2014 CLC 516 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-11-28
  locus poenitentiaepublic propertycompetitive biddinglicense cancellationtransparencyvested rightswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the Capital Development Authority's (CDA) decision to cancel their five-year advertising site licenses and re-auction them, arguing the action was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated the principle of locus poenitentiae. The CDA contended that the original licenses were granted without a competitive bidding process, causing significant financial loss to the public exchequer, and that the cancellation was necessary to implement recommendations from a judicial commission regarding transparency. The core legal question was whether the petitioners acquired a vested right through the initial license grant that precluded the Authority from rescinding it, and whether the principle of locus poenitentiae applied to protect these licenses. The Court held that public functionaries have an obligation to ensure transparency and maximize public revenue when alienating state property. Since the original licenses were granted without competitive bidding, they lacked legal validity. The Court ruled that the principle of locus poenitentiae does not apply to illegal orders, and the petitioners held no vested right to continue under invalidly issued licenses. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to protect a license granted without following a competitive bidding process?
  • Can a public authority cancel licenses issued without a competitive process to ensure transparency and maximize public revenue?
  • Does a licensee have a vested right to continue a license if the initial grant violated the requirement for competitive bidding?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehtab Ahmed vs The State, etc2014-IHC-47 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-08-21
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayright to fair trialstate-appointed counselfiduciary dutymurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay filed by Mehtab Ahmed, who was accused in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions addressed are whether an accused is entitled to bail as of right under the 3rd Proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after continuous incarceration exceeding two years, and whether the delay caused by state-appointed counsel or the prosecution can be attributed to the accused to forfeit this right. The Islamabad High Court held that the right to bail on statutory grounds is mandatory once the prescribed period has elapsed without conclusion of the trial, unless the delay is directly attributable to the accused or a person acting on their voluntary behalf. The Court ruled that delays occasioned by counsels appointed by the court at state expense cannot be imputed to the helpless accused as acts of a representative of their choice. Consequently, the petition was allowed, establishing the key principle that the state and court owe a fiduciary duty of care to an indigent accused, and failures of state-appointed counsel do not prejudice the accused's statutory right to liberty.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right under the 3rd Proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after continuous incarceration exceeding two years?
  • Can the delay caused by a defence counsel appointed by the court at state expense be attributed to the accused for the purposes of denying statutory bail?
  • Does the mere charge of an offence punishable with death bring the accused within the exception of being a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal under the 4th Proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the failure of the prosecution and trial court to conclude a trial within a reasonable time constitutes a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Master Textile Mills and 275 others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2014 PLD Islamabad 83 · Islamabad High Court
  judicial reviewultra viresMoney BillCouncil of Common Interestsnatural gastax vs feefundamental rightslegislative competence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a series of constitutional petitions filed by numerous industrial units challenging the legality of the Gas Infrastructure Development Cess Act, 2011 (GIDC Act). The petitioners contended that the levy, introduced as a Money Bill, was unconstitutional due to procedural lapses and lack of legislative competence. The core legal questions centered on whether the cess constituted a tax or a fee, the necessity of Council of Common Interests (CCI) approval for matters involving natural gas, and compliance with Article 73 of the Constitution. The Court held that while the cess is a tax, the Act is ultra vires to the Constitution. The ratio decidendi is that natural gas falls under Part II of the Federal Legislative List, requiring policy formulation and approval by the CCI under Articles 153 and 154. Bypassing the CCI violates the federal structure and fundamental rights. Furthermore, the Court found that the mandatory procedure for Money Bills under Article 73 was not followed. Consequently, the Act was declared void, and the authorities were restrained from collecting the cess.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a levy earmarked for a specific administrative purpose with no direct quid pro quo constitutes a tax or a fee?
  • Is the approval of the Council of Common Interests mandatory for legislation concerning natural gas under the Federal Legislative List?
  • Does the failure to simultaneously transmit a Money Bill to the Senate as per Article 73 render the resulting Act unconstitutional?
  • Can a statute be struck down if it bypasses the constitutional role of the Council of Common Interests in federal matters?
  Read full judgment →
• LESCO and 501 others vs North Star Textile Mills and others2014 CLC 28 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-06-27Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Saad Saleem vs Federation of Pakistan and othersPTCL 2014 CL. 236 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-06-19Read full judgment →
• Khalid Safdar vs The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2014-IHC-129 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-11-07
  upgradationpromotionmove-overrental ceilinghouse rent allowancecivil servantsterms and conditions of serviceconsultation with Establishment Division
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an Office Memorandum issued by the Finance Division treating the grant of BPS-19 to Private Secretaries as a move-over rather than an upgradation or promotion, thereby denying them enhanced rental ceilings and house rent allowances. The core legal question was whether the Finance Division could unilaterally downgrade the status of upgraded posts of Private Secretaries and deprive them of financial benefits associated with their higher scale without consulting the Establishment Division or obtaining approval from the Prime Minister. The Islamabad High Court held that the impugned Office Memorandum was issued without lawful authority, lacked consultation with the Establishment Division, and was discriminatory and malafide. The ratio decidendi is that an executive office cannot alter or retract a properly approved upgradation of civil servants, which amounts to a promotion, by treating it as a time-scale move-over after a prolonged delay. The court laid down the principle that upgradation of posts entails promotion carrying all associated financial benefits and privileges, and administrative changes affecting terms and conditions of service require mandatory prior consultation with the Establishment Division under the Rules of Business.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the grant of a higher basic pay scale through upgradation of posts amounts to a promotion or a time-scale move-over?
  • Can the Finance Division unilaterally issue an Office Memorandum altering the terms and conditions of civil servants without prior consultation with the Establishment Division?
  • Whether civil servants granted a higher pay scale through upgradation are entitled to the rental ceiling and house rent allowance of that higher scale?
  • Does an executive authority have the power to retract or dilute an established upgradation policy long after its implementation without lawful justification?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Mahmood vs Government of Pakistan and others2014 PLC (C.S.) 562 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-04-01
  writ jurisdictionnatural justiceaudi alteram partemcontractual appointmentstate-owned companyarbitrary removallegitimate expectation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges a notification issued by the Finance Division, Government of Pakistan, removing the petitioner from his position as Director/Deputy Managing Director of Pak China Investment Company Ltd. before the expiry of his three-year tenure. The petitioner contended that his removal was arbitrary, lacked procedural fairness, violated the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem), and breached the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement between the Governments of Pakistan and China. The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable, citing the master-servant relationship and the petitioner's lack of locus standi. The Court held that the removal was illegal and without lawful justification, as it was effected without providing the petitioner an opportunity to defend against allegations of poor performance. The Court emphasized that even in contractual appointments involving state-owned entities, public power must be exercised fairly, and arbitrary removal without due process or adherence to governing agreements is impermissible. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned notification, affirming that good governance requires adherence to proper legal procedures and the principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a contractual employee of a state-owned company can be removed before the expiry of their tenure without being afforded an opportunity of hearing?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to review the removal of an employee from a state-owned company where public power is exercised?
  • Is a notification of removal from a public office valid if it fails to disclose the reasons for the action taken?
  Read full judgment →
• Independent Newspapers Corportion (Pvt.) Ltd through Authorised2014 PLD Islamabad 7 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-05-31Read full judgment →
• Haroon Rashid vs Station House Officer, Police Station Abpara, Islamabad and another2014 PLD Islamabad 71 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-07-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Saif Ullah Khan Bangash vs Securities and Exchange Commission2014 CLD 83 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-09-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Raziq Khan vs Federation of Pakistan and others2014 CLD 975 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-04-07Read full judgment →
• Federal Board of Revenue and another vs Khawaja Saad SaleemK.L.R. 2014 Civil Cases 366 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-04-21Read full judgment →
• Federal Board of Revenue and another vs Kh. Saad SaleemK.L.R. 2014 Civil Cases 366, 2014 PTD 1531 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-04-21Read full judgment →
• Farkhand Iqbal vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 1223 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-03-14
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydocumentary evidencecivil servantillegal allotmentcriminal breach of trustcorruption
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Grade-21 civil servant, sought post-arrest bail regarding allegations of illegal allotment of residential plots, fictitious balloting, and receipt of illegal gratification in the Capital Development Authority. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the status of the investigation. The Court held that the prosecution failed to substantiate the allegations of fictitious balloting, noting that the co-accused involved in those specific acts had already been granted bail. Furthermore, the Court observed that the prosecution had not secured critical documentary evidence despite the passage of time, casting doubt on the case. Emphasizing that the prosecution’s case rested primarily on documentary evidence and that there was no risk of the petitioner absconding, the Court determined that the matter required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that the case fell within the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case sufficient to deny the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to secure critical documentary evidence during the investigation justify the grant of bail?
  • Can a case be considered one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution relies on documentary evidence that has not been produced?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to bail when the primary allegations of fictitious balloting are attributed to a co-accused who has already been granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Asmatullah and others vs International Islamic University and others2014 PLC (C.S.) 297 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-08-06
  constitutional petitionillegal appointmentspublic sector employmentopen advertisementtransparencycontract appointmentseducational institutions
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court challenging the appointments of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 on contract and daily wages by the International Islamic University without open advertisement or adherence to merit and established qualifications. The core legal question was whether public appointments made without advertising posts, violating HEC guidelines, and bypassing competitive processes are legally sustainable. The Islamabad High Court allowed the petition, holding that the appointments of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were illegal, non-transparent, dubious, and offensive to the Constitution. The Court laid down the key principle that all public sector appointments must be made through a transparent, competitive process with proper advertisement of posts, ensuring that administrative discretion is exercised in a structured, reasonable manner and in the public interest.

  Questions settled

  • Whether public appointments made without open advertisement and competitive process are legally sustainable?
  • Can educational institutions appoint faculty or staff members on contract or daily wages bypassing prescribed qualifications and rules?
  • Does the failure to advertise posts for public appointments render the resulting inductions illegal and void?
  Read full judgment →
• Defence Housing Authority, Islamabad. vs Multi-National Venture2014-IHC-80 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-11-20Read full judgment →
• Communication House (Pvt) Ltd. vs Pakistan Telecommunication2014 PLD Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-10-31Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, Islamabad vs Chairman, Customs Appellate2014 PTD 2014 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-12-20Read full judgment →
• Collector Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Islamabad vs Mubarak Shah and 2 others2014 PTD 2007 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-06-11Read full judgment →
• Before lqbal Hameed-ur-Rahman, Dr. M. Sohail Karim Hashmi vs Federation of Pakistan and others2014 PLC (C.S.) 367 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-01-13
  writ jurisdictionmaster and servant principlestatutory rulesservice mattersconstitutional petitionPM&DCofficial gazette notification
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated writ petitions filed by the Registrar/Secretary of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC) challenging his suspension, disciplinary proceedings, and the validity of the PM&DC Employees Service and Administrative Rules, 2009. The core legal question was whether these service rules are statutory in nature, thereby enabling the petitioner to invoke the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, for service-related grievances. The Court held that while the PM&DC was created under the Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962, the 2009 service rules were not notified in the official gazette. Consequently, the Court determined that these rules are non-statutory, internal regulations rather than legislative instruments. The ratio established is that for regulations to be statutory, they must be made by a rule-making authority in exercise of statutory power and attended by formal requirements, such as publication in the official gazette. Absent such statutory status, the employment relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant, rendering the writ petitions not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Are the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Employees Service and Administrative Rules, 2009, considered statutory rules?
  • Does the failure to publish service rules in the official gazette render them non-statutory?
  • Can an employee of a statutory body invoke Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, if their service conditions are governed by non-statutory rules?
  • Is the principle of master and servant applicable to employees of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmad Malik vs Federation of Pakistan and others2014 PLC (C.S.) 306 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-03-04
  contract appointmenttermination of contractDrug Courtservice tenurepromissory estoppelfavouritismconstitutional petitionterritorial jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a notification appointing respondent No. 2 as Chairman of the Drug Court, Lahore, and sought to preserve his own earlier appointment to the same post, alongside a criminal original for violation of court orders. The core legal questions involved the legality and tenure of overlapping contract appointments, adherence to standard contractual terms and service rules, and the requirements for termination of contract employment under government policy. The court held that both appointments suffered from procedural irregularities, lack of transparency, and favoritism, as the petitioner's contract was terminated without assigning reasons or complying with mandatory notice requirements, and the replacement was appointed without lawful justification. The court laid down the principle that appointments, removals, and promotions must strictly follow the law, rules, and established transparent procedures, and contractual tenures and prescribed terms cannot be arbitrarily curtailed or varied without compelling, recorded reasons.

  Questions settled

  • Can a competent authority terminate a contract employee's service without complying with the mandatory notice or payment requirements specified in the standard terms and conditions of contract?
  • Whether the appointment of a replacement to a public office while a valid prior appointment subsists without formal cancellation is lawful?
  • Do the Islamabad High Court and the Lahore High Court share concurrent jurisdiction over certain matters arising from orders passed by federal functionaries in Islamabad?
  • Must appointments, removals, and promotions of public functionaries be made in strict accordance with the law and transparent rules rather than unguided discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain Shah and others vs Mst. Sarwar Jan and others2014 MLD 1262 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-02-10Read full judgment →
• Asad Hafeez vs Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad2014 PTD 2003 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-04-05Read full judgment →
• Ansar Mahmood vs Jamshed Ahmed Mustafa Zuberi, etc.2014-IHC-1 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-08-25Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Farooq Zia vs Registrar, Trade Unions, National Industrial2014 PLC 97 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-11-12
  trade union registrationalternative statutory remedylocus standiconstitutional jurisdictionconcealment of factssunset legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the registration of a trade union, the All Pakistan ZTBL Officers Association (Patriots), under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2011 and Industrial Relations Act 2012. The core legal questions revolved around the legal status of proceedings initiated under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2011 after the promulgation of the Industrial Relations Act 2012, the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 12 of the Industrial Relations Act 2012, and the petitioner's locus standi to challenge the registration given that his alleged membership was disputed and he had not established proof of it before the court. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner lacked locus standi due to failure to prove membership, had concealed material facts regarding the availability of remedies, and that an adequate alternative remedy of appeal was available under the statute. The key principle laid down is that a writ petition is not maintainable where an alternative statutory appeal is provided and where the petitioner lacks locus standi and approaches the court with unclean hands by concealing material facts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is provided under the statute?
  • Does a person have locus standi to challenge a trade union's registration when their alleged membership is disputed and unsupported by evidence?
  • What is the effect of concealment of material facts on a party seeking relief under constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan-Ul-Haq vs The State and another2014 MLD 1220 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-05-12
  post-arrest bailmurdercommon intentionattempt to commit murdereyewitness testimonyrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Bani Gala, Islamabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who allegedly fired shots that did not cause injury to the deceased or the witnesses, was entitled to bail despite being identified by eyewitnesses and linked to the scene through recovery memos. The Court held that while the petitioner did not cause the fatal injuries, the eyewitness accounts and recovery of weapon casings supported the prosecution's case that the petitioner actively participated by firing at witnesses, thereby facilitating the commission of the crime. The Court determined that the petitioner’s actions constituted an attempt to commit murder, rendering the case unsuitable for bail at this stage. The key principle laid down is that even where an accused does not cause the fatal injury, the act of firing at witnesses to facilitate a murder, supported by recovery evidence, constitutes sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a fatal injury caused by an accused preclude the denial of bail in a murder case?
  • Can an accused be denied bail if they fired at witnesses during the commission of a murder, even if the shots did not hit?
  • Is the recovery of weapon casings and signs of firing on walls sufficient to support a prima facie case for bail refusal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 407 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-11-25
  post-arrest bailtentative assessmentprejudicetrial court jurisdictionmiscarriage of justicebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a murder case after the trial court rejected his application. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted within its jurisdiction by making conclusive findings on the merits of the case during the bail stage. The Islamabad High Court held that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into the merits, effectively prejudging the guilt of the accused, and making derogatory observations that prejudiced the trial. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, the court must perform only a tentative assessment of evidence and avoid deeper appreciation or conclusive findings on guilt or innocence, which are reserved for the trial. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, withdrew the case from the presiding officer who had exposed his mind, and transferred the matter to the Sessions Judge for a fresh decision on the bail application and trial. The key principle laid down is that courts must refrain from conclusive findings on guilt during bail proceedings to prevent prejudice and miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Should a court make conclusive findings on the guilt or innocence of an accused during bail proceedings?
  • Is it permissible for a trial court to delve into the merits of a case while deciding a bail application?
  • Can a case be transferred from a trial court if the presiding officer has expressed a premature opinion on the merits of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad Maneka, etc. vs The Federation of Pakistan, etc.K.L.R. 2014 Labour & Service Cases 82 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-07-22
  civil service promotionCentral Selection Boardexecutive discretiondue processarbitrary actionjudicial reviewservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions filed by BS-20 civil servants challenging the Prime Minister’s decision to remand their promotion cases to the Central Selection Board (CSB) after the CSB had already recommended them for promotion to BS-21. The core legal question was whether the Prime Minister possesses the authority to arbitrarily reject or remand CSB recommendations based on subjective general perception or personal knowledge rather than objective criteria. The Court held that the Prime Minister’s order was illegal and arbitrary, setting it aside. It ruled that the CSB acts as a semi-judicial forum, and its recommendations are mandatory under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The executive authority cannot override these recommendations without valid, objective reasons or proof of procedural flaws. The Court established that discretion must be exercised transparently and based on good evidence, not hearsay or personal knowledge. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that civil servants are entitled to due process, and promotion decisions must adhere to the rule of law, ensuring that executive discretion is not used to bypass merit-based selection processes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Prime Minister have the authority to reject or remand recommendations of the Central Selection Board based on personal knowledge or general perception?
  • Is the Central Selection Board considered a semi-judicial forum whose recommendations are mandatory for the executive authority?
  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction in service matters when the Federal Service Tribunal is not functional?
  • Does the exercise of executive discretion in promotion matters require adherence to the principles of due process and fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Aerotron (Private) Limited through Managing Director and 2 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister (Chief Executive) and 9 others2014 CLC 1630, 2014 CLD 1185 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-11-27Read full judgment →
• Adnan Khan vs Federation of Pakistan2014 PLC (C.S.) 1262 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-02-09Read full judgment →