Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 4,389 judgments in total from the Islamabad High Court.
- Muhammad Faisal Iqbal Qureshi and others vs Additional Collector2009 PTD 932 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-01-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Saleem vs Capital Development Authority and another2009 CLC 635 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashraf vs Islamabad Club through Secretary2009 PLC 5 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The instant labour appeal challenges the judgment of the Labour Court, Islamabad, which dismissed the appellant's petition against his termination from service. The appellant, an employee of the respondent establishment, was initially dismissed in 2000, reinstated by the Labour Court, and upon appeal, the High Court directed the respondent to conduct fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the law. Following an inquiry, the appellant was again terminated in 2004, leading to the second labour petition which was dismissed. The core legal question concerns the validity of the inquiry proceedings and whether mandatory provisions and principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing and cross-examination, were violated. The court held that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the law, that adequate opportunity of hearing and cross-examination was provided, and that neither a second show-cause notice nor the supplying of the inquiry report is an absolute requirement of natural justice unless mandated. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to supply a copy of the inquiry report to an employee violates the principles of natural justice?
- Does the law mandate the issuance of a second show-cause notice prior to the termination of an employee for misconduct?
- Whether an inquiry report loses its evidentiary value if the Inquiry Officer is not produced as a witness in court?
- Muhammad Ashiq vs Muhammad Sadiq and another2009 YLR 648(1) · Islamabad High Court · 2008-07-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sobia Ilyas vs The State and 7 others2009 P Cr. L J 910 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, wife of the detenu, filed a constitutional writ petition seeking the production and release of her husband, challenging his arrest and subsequent remand orders in connection with a terrorism case involving the Marriott Hotel bomb blast. The detenu was implicated in case F.I.R. No. 127 dated 20-9-2008 registered under sections 302, 324, 427, 436, 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Act 1884, and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question concerned the legality of the detenu's custody and the validity of judicial remand granted without physical production before the court. The Islamabad High Court held that sufficient material prima facie existed against the detenu for sensitive offenses, rendering his detention legal, but disapproved of his non-production before the trial court. The petition was dismissed with a direction that the accused must be produced before the Special Court Anti-Terrorism before any further judicial remand is granted, while recording an undertaking for jail meetings.
Questions settled- Whether judicial remand can be granted without the physical production of the accused before the court?
- Does the involvement of an accused in sensitive terrorist offenses justify dismissal of a habeas corpus petition challenging detention?
- Is non-production of an accused before the court permissible on the ground of sectarian threats or involvement in sensitive matters?
- Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Mst. Rashim Bibi and 2 others2009 C.L.R. 92 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shaheen vs The State2009 P Cr. L J 475 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the recovery of 1750 grams of opium (referred to as Charas in the judgment) under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner had been incarcerated since September 26, 2008, accompanied by her two minor daughters, aged 4 and 6 years. The core legal question was whether the presence of minor children in jail with their mother, in the absence of any other family support, constitutes sufficient grounds for the grant of bail, notwithstanding the nature of the offence. The Court held that the welfare of the minor children, who were innocent and being exposed to anti-social elements, outweighed the gravity of the offence in this specific instance. The Court emphasized that the children's future and mental well-being must be protected from the miseries of jail life. Consequently, the Court granted bail, noting the petitioner's lack of a criminal record and the possibility that she was merely a carrier, while requiring bail bonds to ensure her appearance.
Questions settled- Can the presence of minor children in jail with an accused mother serve as a ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does the court have the discretion to grant bail in narcotics cases where the accused is a first-time offender and a carrier?
- Mst. Parveen Shaukat vs Masood Ahmed Orakzai and 3 others2009 CLC 607 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-10-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Gulzar Bibi and 2 others vs Chief Commissioner, I.C.T. and 19 others2009 CLC 542 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-01-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fauzia Haveed vs The State2009 YLR 664 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by a female accused facing charges under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a woman detained for over one year without the conclusion of her trial, was entitled to bail under the statutory provisions introduced by Ordinance XIII of 2006. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail. The ratio decidendi established that under the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a woman accused of an offence must be released on bail if she has been detained for a continuous period of six months and her trial has not concluded, provided the delay in the trial is not attributable to the accused. The court further clarified that the abscondence of a co-accused does not bar the court from granting bail to an accused who has otherwise accrued the statutory right to such relief due to the prolonged detention and delay in trial proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the abscondence of a co-accused prevent a female accused from being released on bail when the statutory period of detention has expired?
- Under what conditions is a female accused entitled to bail under the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the delay in trial attributable to the accused a relevant factor in determining the right to statutory bail for a female detainee?
- Mst. Asia Bano. vs Javed Akhtar2009 YLR 770 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-20Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Tabinda A. Moiz through Special Attorney vs Tahir Abbasi and another2009 YLR 856 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-06-12Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Neelofar vs Muhammad Abdul Razaq and 2 others2009 YLR 917 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-04-22Read full judgment →
- Mrs, Waheeda Safdar vs Full Bench, National Industrial Relations2009 PLC 236 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the dismissal of an appeal by the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which had affirmed a Single Bench's finding that no unfair labour practice was established regarding the petitioner's non-selection for a job. The core legal question was whether the NIRC, upon determining that no unfair labour practice occurred, is legally mandated to refer the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication as a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. The High Court held that the NIRC possesses the discretion, but not a mandatory obligation, to refer such cases to the Labour Court under Section 49(6) of the Ordinance. The Court clarified that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 46 to redress individual grievances is distinct from the NIRC’s jurisdiction concerning unfair labour practices. Consequently, the NIRC is not bound to transfer proceedings simply because an unfair labour practice is not proven. The writ petition was dismissed, though the Court noted the petitioner could independently approach the Labour Court under Section 46, subject to condonation of delay.
Questions settled- Is the National Industrial Relations Commission legally obligated to refer a case to the Labour Court if it finds no unfair labour practice has been committed?
- Does the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, depend on the establishment of an unfair labour practice?
- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have the discretion to decide a case of unfair labour practice itself rather than referring it to the Labour Court?
- Mrs Khalida Azhar vs Viqar Rustam Bakhshi and others2009 PTD 1694 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-05-18Read full judgment →
- Moulana Abdul Aziz vs The State2009 YLR 297 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner in a case registered under sections 448, 427, 452, 506, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, alleged to have commanded students to forcibly occupy a library, thereby creating public panic and insecurity, was entitled to bail. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the application, holding that the petitioner failed to satisfy the stringent conditions for bail under section 21-D(iv) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The court established that acts causing public panic and insecurity fall within the definition of "terrorism" under section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. It further clarified that bail may be refused even for offences outside the prohibitory clause based on case merits, and that the principle of consistency is inapplicable where facts differ. Finally, the court affirmed that while deeper appreciation of evidence is prohibited at the bail stage, a tentative assessment of prosecution material is necessary.
Questions settled- Does the act of creating public panic and insecurity fall within the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
- Can bail be refused for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the principle of consistency applicable to bail applications where the facts and merits of the cases differ?
- What is the scope of judicial review regarding prosecution material at the bail stage?
- Miss Naghma Sehar Khan vs Pakistan International Airlines2009 PLC (C.S.) 291 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition concerns the implementation of a judgment passed by the Federal Service Tribunal. The petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan International Airlines, was dismissed from service under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. Upon appeal, the Federal Service Tribunal converted the dismissal into a penalty of stoppage of annual increments. Both parties challenged this decision before the Supreme Court; however, the respondent’s petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, and the petitioner’s petition was subsequently withdrawn. The core legal question was whether the Federal Service Tribunal’s judgment had attained finality, thereby mandating its implementation, or if it had abated under the principle established in Muhammad Mubeen-ul-Islam v. Federation of Pakistan. The Court held that the cited precedent was inapplicable to the present case. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Federal Service Tribunal’s judgment had attained finality upon the dismissal of the respondent's civil petition. The Court directed the respondent to implement the tribunal's order in its entirety, establishing that a tribunal's judgment remains binding when the challenges against it are effectively abandoned or dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal attain finality when the opposing party's civil petition against it is dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Is the judgment in Muhammad Mubeen-ul-Islam v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2006 SC 602) applicable to cases where a civil petition against a Federal Service Tribunal order is dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Can an employer be compelled to implement a Federal Service Tribunal order after the dismissal of the employer's appeal for non-prosecution?
- Messrs Ch. Muhammad Arif and others vs Commissioner of Income Tax2009 PTD 1620 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-05-18Read full judgment →
- Messrs Al-Technique Corporation Of Pakistan Ltd. vs Additional Collector2009 P.C.T.L.R. 1465 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Al-Technique Corporation of Pakistan Ltd vs Additional2009 PTD 1702 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-06-16Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs Zarafat Ali through Special Attorney and 2 others2009 CLC 471 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-11-13Read full judgment →
- Lal Khan and others vs Malik Shahzada Khan and others2009 YLR 420 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-07-04Read full judgment →
- Kamran Masih vs The State2009 YLR 565 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner in case F.I.R. No. 70 dated 15-2-2008, registered under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Kohsar Islamabad. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the recovery of a meager quantity of narcotics and the statutory context of the case. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting that only 610 grams of Charas was allegedly recovered, the petitioner had been incarcerated since 16-2-2008, no further investigation was required, and the challan had not yet been submitted in court. The key principle laid down is that the recovery of a meager quantity of narcotics, coupled with prolonged pre-trial detention and the non-submission of the challan, constitutes sufficient ground to admit an accused person to post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when a meager quantity of narcotics is recovered and the challan has not yet been submitted?
- Does prolonged pre-trial detention without submission of the challan warrant the grant of bail in narcotics cases?
- Whether the recovery of 610 grams of Charas constitutes sufficient ground for withholding post-arrest bail?
- Javed Khan and 2 others vs State Bank of Pakistan through Governor, State Bank and 6 others2009 CLD 581 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-11-28Read full judgment →
- Jahanzaib vs Malik Mehboob and others2009 YLR 691 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, which declared a prosecution witness (the Investigating Officer) hostile and permitted the complainant to cross-examine him. The petitioner contended that the order was non-speaking, lacked reasoning, and that the witness had not provided testimony unfavorable to the prosecution. The core legal question was whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the cross-examination of a prosecution witness. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court’s order was legally sound. The Court affirmed that under Article 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, a court possesses the discretionary power to allow a party to cross-examine its own witness if the witness makes statements inconsistent with the prosecution's case or suppresses the truth. The primary objective of this provision is to uncover the truth. The Court further clarified that declaring a witness hostile does not inherently discredit their testimony, but serves as a necessary procedural tool to test the veracity of evidence.
Questions settled- Does a trial court have the discretion to allow a party to cross-examine its own witness?
- Is it necessary to formally declare a witness as hostile before permitting cross-examination under Article 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
- Does the declaration of a witness as hostile automatically render their entire testimony unreliable?
- Can a court permit the cross-examination of a prosecution witness who makes statements unfavorable to the prosecution?
- Ismail Michael vs The State2009 YLR 598 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Ismail Michael, in a case involving the recovery of 14.5 kilograms of heroin from a consignment of shoes. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of his involvement in drug trafficking, the conflicting statements of witnesses regarding his identity, and the principle of consistency with a co-accused who had been granted bail. The court held that the petition should be dismissed. The ratio of the decision is that there was sufficient prima facie material, including identification by the shop owner and manager of the shoe company and the recovery of packing materials from the petitioner's residence, to connect him to the offense. The court emphasized that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of evidence is permissible, not a deeper appreciation. Furthermore, because the offense is punishable by death or life imprisonment, it falls within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law, and the petitioner failed to establish grounds for bail.
Questions settled- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage?
- Does the principle of consistency apply when the petitioner's case stands on different footings from a co-accused who was granted bail?
- Does an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Ishtiaq Hussain Shah vs The State2009 YLR 577 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 337-L-I, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was alleged to have inflicted a danda blow to the head of the deceased during a mutual clash. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, considering that a prosecution witness did not support the case, a cross-case was registered, and a case was registered against police officials for record tampering. The court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry, entitling the accused to bail as of right. The key principle laid down is that the statutory right to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be withheld merely on the ground of judicial practice or because the trial is ongoing.
Questions settled- Does the commencement of a trial bar the grant of bail if the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry?
- Can bail be withheld on the ground of judicial practice when an accused is entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a hostile witness not supporting the prosecution version make the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Imran Latif vs The State2009 YLR 556 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-07-09Read full judgment →
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 dishonour of a cheque issued for a loan repayment. The petitioner contended that the case was mala fide, citing prior business transactions, partial payments made, and a significant delay between the cheque's issuance and the registration of the FIR. The complainant argued that the challan had been submitted and the charge framed. The Court observed that the long delay in registering the FIR, coupled with the lack of explanation for the complainant's silence, rendered the case one of further inquiry. Furthermore, noting that the petitioner had already been incarcerated for approximately 18 months—a substantial portion of the three-year maximum sentence—and that the trial had not progressed, the Court held that bail should not be withheld as an instrument of punishment. The Court granted bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity of concluding the trial expeditiously.
Questions settled- Does a significant delay in registering an FIR for a dishonoured cheque constitute a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can bail be granted when the accused has already undergone a substantial portion of the maximum sentence provided for the offence?
- Should bail be refused or withheld as an instrument of punishment before the conclusion of a trial?
- Hassan Akhtar and 5 others vs Azhar Hameed and others2009 YLR 1059 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-01-28Read full judgment →
- Haji Raja Mubarik vs Dr. Enayat Hussain and 8 others2009 P Cr. L J 875 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the order of the Special Judge Central, Rawalpindi, which dismissed a private complaint and acquitted the respondents. The core legal questions were whether office-bearers of a Cooperative Housing Society qualify as public servants and whether prior sanction is legally required for their prosecution. The Court held that, pursuant to Section 65-B of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, the respondents are deemed public servants. Regarding the necessity of prior sanction for prosecution, the Court, citing the Supreme Court precedent in Federation of Pakistan v. Zafar Awan, held that statutory provisions requiring prior sanction for the prosecution of public servants are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam and are therefore unenforceable. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, ruling that the complaint was competent and that no prior sanction was required. The matter was remanded to the trial court with directions to proceed with the case on its merits. The judgment reaffirms that criminal proceedings are distinct from civil recovery suits and must be adjudicated on their own evidentiary merits.
Questions settled- Are office-bearers of a Cooperative Housing Society considered public servants under the law?
- Is prior sanction required for the prosecution of a public servant in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Zafar Awan?
- Does the dismissal of a civil suit for recovery preclude criminal proceedings regarding the same subject matter?
- Gregory & Cook S.A. through Hussain Abuzar Pirzada vs Oil and Gas2009 YLR 228 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-07-10Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir and 2 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division and another2009 PLC (C.S.) 428 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-07-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, retired employees of respondent No. 2, filed a writ petition challenging the refusal of their pensionary benefits. The core legal question was whether similarly situated employees are entitled to pensionary benefits based on previous judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal and the Supreme Court, and whether the completion of 25 years of service is a mandatory prerequisite under the law. The court held that under the dictates of good governance, the principle of equal protection of law enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, and established judicial precedents, the benefit of a settled point of law must be extended to non-litigating civil servants who are equally placed. Furthermore, the court held that completion of 25 years of service is not strictly required where an employee is entitled to pensionary benefits under applicable regulations such as Regulation 371-A(i) of the Civil Service Regulations. Consequently, the petition was accepted and respondent No. 2 was directed to grant pensionary relief to the petitioners.
Questions settled- Whether the benefit of a judgment by the Supreme Court or Service Tribunal on a point of law must be extended to other civil servants who were not parties to the litigation?
- Are employees who are equally placed entitled to the same pensionary benefits under the principle of equal protection of law?
- Whether completion of 25 years of service is mandatory for the grant of pensionary benefits in light of Regulation 371-A(i) of the Civil Service Regulations?
- Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad2009 YLR 1296 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a suit filed by the respondent seeking a declaration and correction of his date of birth recorded in his Secondary School Certificate. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, and the lower appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal, maintaining the concurrent findings. The petitioner challenged these judgments in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arguing that the suit was barred by limitation and that civil courts lacked jurisdiction in such matters. The Islamabad High Court examined the record and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that substantial documentary evidence supported the correct date of birth, no rights of third parties were prejudiced, no undue advantage or promotion was obtained, and the petitioner failed to disprove the evidence before the lower forums. The High Court concluded that there was no illegality, misreading, or non-reading of evidence warranting interference, and consequently dismissed the civil revision petition.
Questions settled- Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for correction of date of birth in educational certificates?
- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether a suit for declaration and correction of date of birth is barred by limitation under the Limitation Act 1908?
- Fecto Belarus Tractors Limited vs Government Of Pakistan And 3 OtherPTCL 2009 CL. 317 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-01-14Read full judgment →
- Fecto Belarus Tractors Limited through Chief Executive vs Government2009 PTD 390 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-01-14Read full judgment →
- Fakhar-Ul-Islam Qureshi and another vs Government of Pakistan2009 PLC (C.S.) 510 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This intra-court appeal challenged a Single Judge's dismissal of a writ petition seeking pension increases for employees of Telephone Industries of Pakistan (TIP). The appellants contended that because the Federal Government holds 100% of the company's shares and nominates its management, the entity should be subject to writ jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether TIP, a private limited company, constitutes a "person" performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that TIP, being incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and managed by its own Board of Directors, does not perform governmental functions. Consequently, it is not a "person" amenable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the principle that a private limited company, regardless of government shareholding, does not automatically fall within the scope of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 as a body performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province.
Questions settled- Is a private limited company with government shareholding amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does a private limited company perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province?
- Can employees of a private limited company invoke writ jurisdiction to claim pension benefits?
- Ehanzeb vs The State2009 P Cr. L J 662 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a murder reference and criminal appeals arising from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for which he was originally sentenced to death. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s plea of self-defense was substantiated and whether the death penalty remained appropriate given the evidentiary inconsistencies. The court held that the appellant’s claim of self-defense was untenable, as the deceased was unarmed and no imminent danger existed to justify the use of lethal force. However, noting that both the prosecution and the defense suppressed the full truth regarding the immediate circumstances preceding the fatal incident, the court concluded that the case did not warrant the capital punishment. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction, the court commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The judgment establishes that the right of self-defense is strictly contingent upon imminent danger, and where parties conceal material facts, the court must exercise caution in sentencing to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice.
Questions settled- Can a plea of self-defense be sustained when the deceased was unarmed and no imminent danger existed?
- Does the suppression of material facts by both parties in a criminal case warrant a departure from the normal penalty of death?
- Is a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when both parties have concealed the immediate circumstances of the incident?
- Dr. Muhammad Amin and another vs Aftab Aslam and 2 others2009 CLC 193 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-04-25Read full judgment →
- Dr. Jamal Zafar vs Dr. Nighat Bilal and 2 others2009 PLC (C.S.) 83 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra-Court Appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Judge in Chamber whereby notifications relating to the absorption and grade of the respondent were set aside and she was declared a permanent employee of the Federal Government in BPS-19. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the service dispute in light of the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether the deputation and subsequent absorption of the respondent to BPS-19 violated the Civil Servants Act 1973 and applicable government policies. The court held that matters of seniority, promotion, and terms and conditions of civil servants fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal, ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212. Furthermore, the court held that back-door absorption of a deputationist bypassing prescribed statutory rules and service interests of regular employees is illegal. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the judgment of the learned Judge in Chamber was set aside.
Questions settled- Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
- Can a deputationist be permanently absorbed in a higher grade against the service interests of regular employees and contrary to prescribed civil service rules?
- Whether time spent in obtaining certified copies of a judgment can be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation in filing an Intra-Court Appeal?
- Con' Missioner Income Tax, Coys Zone, Islamabad vs Messrs Pak Data2009 PTD 1500 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-04-27Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of. Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Companies Zone, Islamabad2009 PTD 1661 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-06-29Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth, Tax Companies Zone, Islamabad2009 PTD 1718 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-05-11Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Companies Zone, Islamabad2009 PTD 1632 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-06-01Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax Companies Zone, IslamabadPLJ 2009 Tax Cases (Islamabad) 25 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax, Companies Zone Islamabad vs M/s. DewanPTCL 2009 CL. 54 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax Companies Zone, Islamabad vs Messrs2009 PTD 1767 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This income tax reference addresses whether a period of limitation applies to an order declaring a person an assessee in default under section 52 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for failure to deduct or pay tax. The Assessing Officer had found the respondent company to be an assessee in default, but the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal annulled the order, holding it barred by time under section 156 of the Ordinance. Upon reference to the High Court, the core legal question was whether the law prescribes any limitation period for taking action under section 52. The Court held that the legislature did not provide any period of limitation for passing an order under section 52, and authorities or tribunals cannot import the four-year limitation period prescribed under section 156 into section 52. The Court concluded that there is no time limit for action under section 52 of the repealed Ordinance, answered the reference questions accordingly, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide on merits.
Questions settled- Whether there is any period of limitation provided in the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for taking action under section 52 to declare a person an assessee in default?
- Does the prescription of a limitation period by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 52 amount to legislation beyond its jurisdiction?
- Can the four-year limitation period prescribed for rectification of mistakes under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 be applied to proceedings under section 52?
- Commander (R.) M. Khalil vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Law Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others2009 CLC 522 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-12-23Read full judgment →
- Chairman vs Abdul Majeed and another2009 YLR 1044 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-12-02Read full judgment →
- Capt. (R.) S. Mumtaz Ahmed Inayatullah vs Chief Commissioner and others2009 PLC (C.S.) 323 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a constitutional petition filed by a patron member of the Pakistan Boy Scouts Association (PBSA) challenging the appointment of the Secretary (respondent No.3) as being in violation of PBSA rules and meeting minutes. The core legal questions relate to whether the appointment process complied with applicable rules and whether a writ petition is maintainable against the internal affairs of the PBSA. The court held that the PBSA is a corporate body not controlled by any government department and its affairs, including the appointment of the Secretary, were conducted in accordance with the Pakistan Boy Scouts Association Ordinance, 1959 and P.O.R., 1993, with due approval from the National Council and the Chief Scout. Furthermore, the court held that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person and failed to exhaust available domestic remedies. The writ petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition is maintainable against the internal affairs of the Pakistan Boy Scouts Association?
- Is the Pakistan Boy Scouts Association a body controlled by any government department?
- Whether a petitioner challenging an internal appointment in a non-governmental association qualifies as an aggrieved person without exhausting domestic remedies?
- Capital Development Authority through Director Revenues CDA and another vs Muhammad Ahsan2009 MLD 451 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-11-26Read full judgment →
- Brouno Adam vs The State2009 YLR 5 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who was charged under Section 489-D/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged involvement in counterfeiting currency. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was apprehended with materials including chemicals and black papers purportedly used for counterfeiting. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the absence of expert verification regarding the nature of the recovered materials. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to send the recovered items to a laboratory for expert analysis, rendering it unclear whether the materials were capable of being used for counterfeiting. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry'. The Court granted bail, emphasizing that the lack of expert opinion undermined the applicability of the charged offence, and the trial had not yet commenced despite the submission of the challan. The principle established is that where the essential nature of recovered material is not verified by expert opinion, the case against an accused may warrant further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Does the failure to obtain expert opinion on recovered materials used for alleged counterfeiting entitle an accused to bail?
- Is a case considered one of 'further inquiry' when the prosecution fails to verify the nature of the alleged incriminating material?
- Can bail be granted when the trial has not yet commenced and the material evidence remains unverified?
- Aurangzaib vs The State2009 P Cr. L J 612 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for murder, which resulted in a sentence of life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony, the lack of corroborative evidence regarding the weapon recovery, and the failure to prove the medical evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the eyewitnesses were inconsistent regarding the alleged Lalkara, the medical evidence was not properly brought on record, and the recovery of the weapon after two years was highly suspicious. Furthermore, the police failed to demonstrate that coercive measures were taken during the appellant's alleged abscondance. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond any reasonable doubt, and that a single reasonable doubt regarding the accused's involvement is sufficient to warrant acquittal, as it is better for the guilty to escape than for an innocent person to suffer.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the medical evidence through a qualified witness render the conviction unsustainable?
- Is a conviction under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when the eyewitness testimony regarding the Lalkara is inconsistent?
- Can a conviction be upheld when the recovery of the weapon of offense is delayed by two years and lacks corroborative evidence?
- Does the failure of the police to adopt coercive measures to secure the presence of an accused negate the prosecution's claim of abscondance?
- Asif Saeed Khan vs Saeed-Uz-Zafar Khan and 2 others2009 MLD 648 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-04-18Read full judgment →
- Arshad Ali Khan vs S.M. Ismail2009 MLD 716 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-04-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wadood Khan vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and 3 others2009 PLC (C.S.) 348 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition concerns the legality of the petitioner's supersession for promotion to BS-21 by the Central Selection Board. The petitioner, a Grade-20 officer, challenged his supersession in 2005, which was based on negative reports from intelligence agencies that were never disclosed or confronted to him. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner was subsequently promoted to BS-21. The core legal question was whether the supersession of a civil servant based on undisclosed intelligence reports, without providing an opportunity to respond, constitutes a lawful exercise of authority. The Court held that the supersession was illegal because it relied on adverse material not confronted to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court declared the 2005 supersession to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, ordering that it be treated as a deferment instead. The key principle established is that a civil servant cannot be superseded for promotion based on adverse intelligence reports unless those reports are disclosed to the officer, allowing them a fair opportunity to explain or rebut the allegations.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant be superseded for promotion based on adverse intelligence reports without being confronted with such reports?
- Does the subsequent promotion of a civil servant render a challenge to a prior supersession moot?
- Should an illegal supersession based on undisclosed adverse reports be converted into a deferment?
- Abdul Wadood Khan vs Secretary Establishment Division and 3 others2009 C.L.R. 290 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-09-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman vs Suleman Khan2009 MLD 463 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-10-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs The State2009 YLR 795 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This post-arrest bail application arose from a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the petitioner was accused of participating in a murder occurrence by raising a lalkara while armed with a pistol. The petitioner contended that no injuries were attributed to him, he did not use his weapon, and he was declared innocent during police investigation. The complainant and state opposed bail, arguing that Section 34 applied due to his active presence and commanding instigation. The Islamabad High Court observed that the police found the petitioner's presence at the spot unproved and placed his name in Column No. 2 of the challan. Holding that police findings, while not binding, serve as a relevant factor for bail, and that the nature of a lalkara requires evidentiary determination at trial, the Court found the matter required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court granted post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Can the ipse dixit of the police declaring an accused innocent be considered as a relevant factor when deciding a bail application?
- Whether assigning only a lalkara without causing any physical injury renders an accused's case one of further inquiry for the purpose of post-arrest bail?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of considering a bail application?
- United Bank Limited Employees' Union of Pakistan through General2008 PLC 329 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two consolidated writ petitions filed by the United Bank Limited Employees' Union of Pakistan, which were called for hearing repeatedly without any appearance or intimation from the petitioner. The respondent informed the court that the petitioner failed to participate in the mandatory referendum, following which a Collective Bargaining Agent (C.B.A.) certificate was issued to the relevant union. Furthermore, it was submitted that the petitioner's union registration had been cancelled on July 18, 2006, pursuant to a pronouncement by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) in a related case. The court held that, given the cancellation of the petitioner's registration, the union lacked the locus standi to participate in legal proceedings. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions both for non-prosecution and on their merits, affirming that an unregistered union cannot maintain legal proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a trade union whose registration has been cancelled participate in legal proceedings?
- Does the failure to participate in a referendum affect the standing of a trade union?
- Can a writ petition be dismissed both for non-prosecution and on merits simultaneously?
- Rana Muhammad Qasim Noon vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2008 PLD Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-01-27Read full judgment →
- Raja Safeer Ahmad and another vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and 3 others2008 PLD Islamabad 37 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-27Read full judgment →
- Poepa vs Government of Pakistan and others2008 CLD 830 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-09Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Overseas Employment Promoter Association vs Govt. of Pakistan, etc2008 PLJ Islamabad 33 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Amson Vaccines Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax2008 PTD 1440, 2008 PCTLR 878, PLJ 2008 Tax Cases (Islamabad) 31, PTCL · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-16Read full judgment →
- M/s. Amson Vaccines Pharma (Pvt.) Limited vs Commissioner Of Income2008 P.C.T.L.R. 878 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-16Read full judgment →
- M/s Amson Vaccines Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of IncomePLJ 2008 Tax Cases (Islamabad) 131 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishtiaq vs The State2008 PLD Islamabad 21 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the murder of the deceased following an altercation regarding cattle grazing near a factory. The core legal question was whether the fatal shooting constituted intentional murder or an accidental discharge during a sudden scuffle without premeditation, attracting a lesser penal provision. The Islamabad High Court held that medical evidence regarding the close-range, upward trajectory of the gunshot clashed with the ocular account, indicating a sudden scuffle and scramble for the weapon on the spur of the moment without premeditation or motive. Consequently, the court set aside the death sentence under Section 302(b) and altered the conviction to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing the appellant to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with modified compensation. The key principle laid down is that where an incident occurs on the spur of the moment during a mutual scuffle and sudden provocation without pre-meditation, and medical evidence contradicts the ocular account regarding the manner of the assault, the offense falls under sudden and unintended homicide rather than premeditated murder.
Questions settled- Does a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding the trajectory of a gunshot warrant altering a murder conviction?
- Whether an accidental discharge of a weapon during a sudden mutual scuffle without premeditation attracts Section 302(c) instead of Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a sudden flare-up and exchange of abuses between parties negate the element of premeditation in a homicide case?
- Muhammad Ishtiaq vs StatePLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 850 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to death, arising out of an incident where the deceased was shot dead following a sudden verbal altercation and scuffle over a gun. The core legal question was whether the offense constituted premeditated murder or fell under a lesser category due to a sudden flare-up, scuffle, and lack of pre-meditation, and whether medical evidence conflicted with the ocular account. The Islamabad High Court held that the medical evidence clashed with the eye-witness account regarding the distance and angle of the shot, and that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment without pre-meditation during a scuffle over the weapon, thus altering the conviction. The court laid down the principle that a sudden quarrel and scuffle over a weapon without pre-meditation mitigates the offense from intentional murder to Qatal-e-Amd under circumstances not amounting to qisas, attracting a lesser sentence.
Questions settled- Does a conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding the distance and trajectory of a gunshot warrant a re-evaluation of the prosecution's case?
- Whether an incident arising from a sudden exchange of abuses and a scuffle over a weapon can be categorized as premeditated murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 302(c) when the occurrence happens on the spur of the moment without pre-meditation?
- Muhammad Iqbal Khan vs Director-General, FIA, Islamabad and 42008 PLD Islamabad 26 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Azad vs Malik Zahoor2008 CLC 1513 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Asghar Zardari and others vs C.D.A. and others2008 PLC (C.S.) 1219 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by professional engineers challenging the promotion of non-graduate diploma holders and B-Tech (Hons) degree holders to higher posts within the Capital Development Authority (C.D.A.) that were specifically designated for professional engineers. The core legal question was whether the C.D.A. could legally promote individuals who were not registered as professional engineers with the Pakistan Engineering Council (P.E.C.) to posts involving professional engineering work in violation of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 and the C.D.A. Employees (Service) Regulations, 1992. The Islamabad High Court held that the promotion of unqualified, unregistered persons to posts involving professional engineering work is illegal, unconstitutional, and a direct violation of section 27(5A) of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 and the applicable service regulations. The court established the key principle that only persons duly registered as engineers or professional engineers with the Pakistan Engineering Council can hold posts or execute works involving professional engineering, and departments cannot promote unregistered diploma or B-Tech holders to such engineering posts.
Questions settled- Whether non-registered engineers or B-Tech degree holders can be appointed or promoted to posts involving professional engineering work without registration under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to intervene when a statutory body violates mandatory statutory provisions in making promotions?
- Are B-Tech (Hons) degrees and diplomas equivalent to a B.Sc. Engineering degree for the purpose of holding posts specified for professional engineers?
- Miss Kiran Arif Mian vs Miss Kinza Khalid and another2008 PLJ Islamabad 18 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-04-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sezai Turkes Feyzi Akkaya Construction Company (Stfa)2008 PLD Islamabad 48 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil revision filed by the petitioner challenging an order of the trial court which dismissed its application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for rejection of the plaint. The petitioner contended that pursuant to a dispute resolution clause in the contract executed in Turkey, exclusive jurisdiction was vested in the courts of Istanbul, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the civil courts in Islamabad. The main question was whether a foreign jurisdiction clause in a contract can legally oust the jurisdiction of municipal courts in Pakistan where the defendants carry on business within their territorial limits. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Islamabad High Court held that a contractual clause attempting to confer exclusive jurisdiction on a foreign court to the exclusion of Pakistani courts is invalid. Furthermore, under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the court at Islamabad possessed lawful jurisdiction since the petitioner and its co-partner maintained offices in Islamabad. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a foreign jurisdiction clause in a contract legally oust the jurisdiction of municipal courts in Pakistan?
- Whether the rule allowing a plaintiff to choose between competing fora applies to exclude domestic courts in favor of a foreign forum?
- Does a civil court in Pakistan possess jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 over foreign defendants who maintain offices within its local limits?
- Messrs Fecto Cement Limited, Sangjani, Islamabad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Water and Power, Islamabad and 5 others2008 PLD Islamabad 30 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-06-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs Abbasi Enterprises through Proprietor and another vs Collector2008 PTD 2025, PTCL 2009 CL. 35, 2022 PCTLR 1208 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-07-28Read full judgment →
- Malik Mukhtar Ahmad vs Maj. (R.) Mehmood Ali Khan and 15 others2008 PLD Islamabad 7 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-03-12Read full judgment →
- Malik Mukhtar Ahmad vs Maj. (R) Mahmood Ali Khan 15 others2008 PLJ Islamabad 13 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-03-12Read full judgment →
- Invest Capital Investment Bank Ltd. vs SECP2008 CLD 487 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-03-07Read full judgment →
- Hunza Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Limited through General Manager Finance, Lahore vs Monopoly Control Authority2008 CLD 1206 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-07-30Read full judgment →
- Hashwani Hotels Ltd. through General Manager vs Capital Development2008 MLD 1571 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular first appeal arose from a suit filed by the appellant challenging the cancellation of a land allotment by the Capital Development Authority (CDA). The appellant had purchased the land via open auction, but the respondent failed to deliver actual physical possession due to encroachments and pending litigation. Despite this, the respondent cancelled the allotment for non-payment of outstanding installments. The appellant challenged the cancellation, asserting that the respondent could not demand payment without delivering possession, and that the cancellation was issued by an incompetent officer. The High Court held that the terms of an allotment letter must be read harmoniously; the respondent could not invoke installment payment clauses while failing to deliver actual physical possession. Furthermore, the cancellation by the Director of Estate Management was without jurisdiction, as such power vested solely in the Chairman under the relevant regulations. The Court set aside the trial court's dismissal, declared the cancellation illegal, and directed the appellant to deposit the balance amount and the respondent to deliver clear possession.
Questions settled- Can an authority cancel an allotment for non-payment of installments when it has failed to deliver actual physical possession of the land?
- Can the power to cancel an allotment of land be exercised by a subordinate officer when such power is exclusively vested in the Chairman under the relevant regulations?
- Whether the terms of an allotment letter regarding payment of installments and delivery of possession must be read harmoniously?
- Hamdard National Foundation Pakistan' vs Roznama Hamdard2008 CLD 1349 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-07-30Read full judgment →
- Dr. Rukhshanda Parveen vs Federation of Pakistan and others2008 PLD Islamabad 5 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional petition was filed under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court seeking the removal of the petitioner's name from the Exit Control List (ECL). The petitioner, a medical practitioner and head of an NGO, was placed on the ECL following recommendations by an intelligence agency due to her professional association with Dr. A.Q. Khan. The core legal question before the court was whether the executive can restrict a citizen's right to freedom of movement by placing their name on the ECL based solely on oral statements without any supporting written material or evidence. The High Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to remove the petitioner's name from the ECL. The court held that executive actions detrimental to the fundamental rights and liberty of a citizen cannot be sustained in law without valid material or justification, and placing a citizen's name on the ECL without written record or evidence is impermissible.
Questions settled- Can a citizen's name be placed on the Exit Control List based solely on oral statements without written material or evidence?
- Whether executive actions restricting a citizen's liberty and right to travel are permissible without valid supporting legal material?
- Can the High Court issue directions under its constitutional jurisdiction to remove a person's name from the Exit Control List when no justification is provided?
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone, Islamabad vs Messrs2008 PTD 1988 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ch. Khalid Mehmood vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary Election Commission, Islamabad and 16 others2008 MLD 1648 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-29Read full judgment →
- Capital Development Authority, Islamabad through Chairman vs Commissioner, C.D.A., Islamabad and 2 others2008 CLC 1530 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-06-03Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad Sheikh vs Sme Bank Limited2008 PLC (C.S.) 1179 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former employee of the SME Bank, challenged the calculation of his benefits under the Voluntary Separation Scheme (V.S.S.) of 2001, contending that payments should have been based on his last pay drawn. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute regarding the calculation of contractual service benefits where the employee had already accepted a "full and final settlement" and where no statutory rules governed the employment relationship. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that the V.S.S. constituted a concluded contract, the petitioner had accepted the payment without reservation, and the Bank lacked statutory rules governing service conditions, thereby invoking the master-servant principle. Furthermore, the Court determined that the matter involved disputed questions of fact and that the petitioner had alternative legal remedies available. The principle laid down is that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to resolve factual disputes arising from contractual service agreements, particularly where the petitioner has already accepted a full and final settlement without protest.
Questions settled- Is a writ petition maintainable against a bank that lacks statutory rules governing the terms and conditions of its employees?
- Can an employee challenge the calculation of benefits under a voluntary separation scheme after accepting payment as a full and final settlement?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the calculation of service benefits in a writ petition?
- Is the relationship between a bank and its employees governed by the principle of master and servant in the absence of statutory rules?
- Asghar Zardari vs Capital Development Authority etc.2008 PLJ Islamabad 5 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, professional engineers registered with the Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC), challenged the Capital Development Authority's (CDA) promotion of non-professional, non-registered employees holding B-Tech (Hons) degrees and diplomas to posts designated for professional engineers. The core legal question was whether the CDA could promote individuals lacking B.Sc. (Engineering) degrees and PEC registration to positions involving "professional engineering works" in contravention of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976. The court held that the promotions were illegal and void ab initio. It determined that under Section 27(5A) of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976, only individuals registered with the PEC as professional engineers are eligible to hold posts involving professional engineering work. The court emphasized that the PEC is the sole regulatory body for the engineering profession in Pakistan, and departmental promotions cannot bypass mandatory statutory requirements for professional registration. Consequently, the court directed the CDA to refrain from considering non-registered personnel for posts requiring professional engineering qualifications, affirming that such appointments violate both the PEC Act and fundamental rights under the Constitution.
Questions settled- Can a statutory body promote non-registered employees to posts designated for professional engineers?
- Does the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 mandate registration for all persons performing professional engineering works?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against a statutory body regarding the violation of statutory qualification requirements for promotion?
- Are B-Tech (Hons) degrees equivalent to B.Sc (Engineering) degrees for the purpose of performing professional engineering works?
- Chishtia Sugar Mills Faruka, Sargodha vs Assistant Director(K.L.R 1992 Labour & Service Cases 237) · Islamabad High Court · 1992-08-06Read full judgment →
- A.D.Nasim vs Ministry of Finance and OtherK.L.R. 1989 Labour & Service Cases 75 · Islamabad High Court · 1988-08-11Read full judgment →