Pakistan Supreme Court updates

[ghazi52]

CJP says Sindh government is a complete failure

The Frontier Post
August 12, 2020


KARACHI (TLTP): Observing that neither the Sindh government nor the local government is working on removing the encroachments, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) to clean up all the nullahs in Karachi and remove encroachments along them.

A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Gulzar Ahmed, issued these directives while hearing a petition related to encroachments on nullahs in the port city.

The Chief Justice remarked that the Sindh government is a “complete failure” and its people are only enjoying themselves.

Commissioner Karachi Iftikhar Shallwani presented a report to the court over operations undertaken by the authorities against encroachments.

However, the court expressed dissatisfaction with the report and instead lambasted the Sindh and local governments over lack of progress. The court also directed the Sindh government to assist the NDMA.

The report said that Karachi has 38 major nullahs and 514 small nullahs which are under the control of the DMCs. The commissioner told the court that the NDMA is working on cleaning only three major nullahs of the city. The commissioner told the court that people had been living on land encroached on the mullahs for the last ten years.

“The Sindh government has done nothing for the people. You did nothing in the last 20 years,” remarked CJP Ahmed.

To this, the advocate general Sindh intervened and informed the court that when the government goes to remove the encroachments, people start “attacking” them.

He added that a “law and order situation” gets created.

“This is the writ of your government. Where is the writ of the government in Karachi?” asked the CJP for the government lawyer’s response. He remarked that the city is full of sewerage water and people walk on streets by placing stepping stones on the water.

Meanwhile, Justice Faisal Arab also expressed his disappointment with the state of affairs in the province, deploring that people have to approach the courts for water and electricity.

“There is a mafia operating here. There is no law,” said CJP Ahmed. He added that the “complete government machinery” was involved in how the situation was in the province.

During the hearing, the attorney general of Pakistan informed the court that the federal government is closely looking into the matters of Karachi.

“We are looking at all constitutional and lawful options,” the attorney general informed the court. He added that Karachi is a metropolitan city and no one can see its metropolitan city being “destroyed”.

“I cannot give my final word on Karachi but a decision will be made soon,” the attorney general told the court.

 

[ghazi52]

SC turns down plea to reassign drain cleaning to Sindh govt


Agencies

AUGUST 14, 2020

The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday rejected Sindh government’s petition to reassign the responsibility for cleaning Karachi’s drainage system to it instead of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA).


The apex court, under Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed, made the decision after resuming hearing in a case regarding rain-related problems and unscheduled load shedding in the provincial metropolis. The Sindh government presented a report related to its performance in the recent monsoon season and the measures it took to mitigate the problems caused by heavy rains.


“You [the Sindh government] show us pictures after cleaning up two nullahs and claim that [all of] Karachi has been cleaned up now,” the top judge remarked on the performance report. he inquired that if the drains were being cleaned up as was claimed then why did water inundate the city during the rains. “If the Sindh government was cleaning the drains then why did the NDMA have to step in?” the judge asked the provincial authorities.

The advocate general responded saying it is not clear why the NDMA was sent to the city, claiming that 50% work was already done on the Gujjar nullah and 20-25% on the other major drains when the authority took charge. The provincial government then sought time till August 30 for cleaning up the drainage system of the city. To this, Justice Aijaz-ul-Hasan reminded the officials that the NDMA was already cleaning up the drains. He urged the Sindh government to help alleviate the problems of the residents of the metropolis.


The court also rejected a report submitted by K-Electric over continuous electricity load shedding in Karachi. The CJP remarked that power of half of the city was suspended after court orders, to which the K-Electric claimed that Pakistan State Oil (PSO) was not providing fuel to it.


https://dailytimes.com.pk/653688/sc-turns-down-plea-to-reassign-drain-cleaning-to-sindh-govt/

 

[ghazi52]

SC gives four weeks for restructuring of Pakistan Railways

Hearing adjourned for four weeks

August 20, 2020

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) Thursday on gave four weeks to restructure the Pakistan Railways on the request of the Planning Commission.

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Gulzar Ahmed heard the suo motu case regarding losses incurred by the Pakistan Railways. Along with orders of restructuring the railways to the Planning Commission, the apex court also sought a progress report on the circular railway from the Sindh government and the provincial railway department.

“The bridge built by the British at Kotri is still in good condition, while the Karachi-Hyderabad bridge could collapse at any moment,” CJP Ahmed said. “There is no bridge on the Indus that the nation can be proud of.”

The chief justice added that bridges constructed during Ayub Khan’s era were still in better condition, whereas, all bridges built afterwards in the country are not in the best condition. "Good bridges should be built for Main Line-1 (ML-1)."

Secretary railways prayed upon the court that package one of ML-1 would be completed in three years in which state-of-the-art bridges would be constructed.The chief justice responded that three years is too long a time period.

“The Chinese lay railway lines in months,” he said. “If funds are available, then the project should not take time to complete. Laying a track of 1,800kms is not a problem for China.”

Karachi Commissioner also informed the court that the tender had been issued for fencing of railway stations in Karachi.

The apex court adjourned the hearing for four weeks.

 

[ghazi52]

RO cannot disqualify a lawmaker for life: Supreme Court

Apex court says forum of returning officer lacks the attributes of a court of law


Hasnaat Malik
August 22, 2020

Three-judge bench of the Supreme Court heard a review petition filed by a disqualified lawmaker.



ISLAMABAD: The country’s top court has ruled that a returning officer (RO) – an official responsible for overseeing elections in one or more constituencies – cannot disqualify a lawmaker for the lifetime under Article 62(1) (f) of the Constitution.
"Since the forum of the returning officer lacks the attributes of a court of law therefore the electoral disqualification imposed on the review petition under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution ceased to be effective after the 18th Amendment,” said an 8-page judgment authored by Justice Umar Ata Bandial.
Justice Bandial issued the verdict as part of a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court which heard a review petition filed by a disqualified lawmaker Allah Dino Khan Bhayo.
In the judgment, the bench adjudicated as to whether an RO's December 3, 2007 finding against Bhayo ahead of 2008 general elections is final and binding for the purpose of permanently disqualifying him from contesting any election.
During the summary proceedings held for scrutiny of Bhayo’s nomination papers, the RO had concluded that the equivalence certificate issued by Khairpur’s Shah Abdul Latif University for the petitioner’s madrassa degree was fake. He had disqualified Bhayo from contesting election from PS-12 Shikarpur-II.
In the wake of the RO’s order, the petitioner stepped out of the elections and did not challenge the finding. However, he contested in May 2013 general election and got elected as a member of the Sindh Assembly in the year 2013.
However, later a complaint was filed against him and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in exercise of its powers under Section 103-AA of the Representation of People Act, 1976 (Ropa) declared him disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.
The ECP’s decision was based on the December 3, 2007 finding of the RO. The petitioner later challenged the said finding but an SC bench ultimately upheld the ECP order. The petitioner later filed a review petition against the order.
A three-judge bench led by Justice Bandial heard the review petition. In its judgment, it noted that a disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) can only be imposed by or under a declaration by a court of law.
"By such prescription Article 62(1)(f) creates a lawful, transparent and fair mechanism for an election candidate to contest an allegation that he is disqualified under one or more of the grounds listed in the said Constitutional provision."
The court noted that it is evident that the summary finding given by the RO against the review petitioner in the year 2007 did not comply with the requirement laid out in Article 62(1)(f) as amended in the year 2010, namely a declaration by a court of law.
"This is because a RO does not record evidence in his proceedings which are summary in nature. His finding, unless set aside, is therefore valid only for the corresponding election.
“In these circumstances, the doctrine of res judicata would also be inapplicable to the finding of the RO because although the said finding remained unchallenged, the same was given without the recording of evidence including the right of cross examination."
The judgment noted that according to the settled law, the amended provision of Article 62(1)(f) is effective prospectively from the date of its enforcement.
This provision governs all disqualification claims that arise after its promulgation in the year 2010. In the present case, disqualification of the petitioner was sought in the general election held in 2013 when a declaration by a court of law was necessary to attract the constitutional disqualification.
“On the other hand, the finding of the RO in the present case was rendered in 2007 prior to the amendment in Article 62(1)(f). Such a finding was not a verdict given after a trial by a court of law; namely, for the purposes of this case, an election tribunal or a court of plenary jurisdiction"
The court, however, clarified that a finding of dishonesty remains an ignoble impediment against the election of the petitioner. Therefore, it must be overcome by the petitioner if at any stage in the future he wishes to contest elections.
“An allegation of dishonesty based on the certificate of Shah Abdul Latif University rather than the finding of the RO dated 03.12.2007, may still be invoked against the petitioner.
“This would involve the allegation that the petitioner committed forgery in the year 2007 by falsely claiming his educational qualification to be equivalent to a graduation degree.”
As this allegation, it said, remains unchallenged by the petitioner, any aggrieved party can in future object before the competent forum that dishonesty of the petitioner is apparent from the university’s finding to the effect that he relied on a fake equivalence certificate for his sanad issued by a madrassa"
The court allowed review petition and recalled its observation regarding his disqualification for lifetime under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Debate on applicability of Article 62
A section of lawyers believes that the court jurisdiction on election matters is inconsistent, confusing and conflicting. Since 2009, the apex court has initiated a process to disqualify lawmakers by exercising the jurisdiction of quo warranto.
When the apex court held that an RO could not disqualify any lawmaker under Article 62 (1) (f) through summary trial and without recording evidence then how the superior courts could do the same by exercising quo warranto.
However, a legal expert said the superior courts could disqualify a lawmaker on admitted facts in writ jurisdiction. He, however, added that in the presence of Article 225 of Constitution, the superior courts must show restraint to examine the eligibility of any lawmaker in quo warranto jurisdiction.
Two years ago, the SC evolved a jurisprudence wherein while exercising suo motu power, it could disqualify a lawmaker but on the other hand, an election petition against the same MNA or MPA might be rejected on technical grounds for not fulfilling the verification process.
Even in the Sheikh Rashid disqualification case, SC judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa had raised several questions about the quo warranto jurisdiction wherein the eligibility of lawmakers was being examined by the superior courts under Articles 184 (3) and 199 of Constitution.
Justice Isa questioned as to whether the superior courts could intervene in election matters in view of Article 225 of Constitution wherein it is held that they would only be challenged in election tribunals.
Legal experts have urged the SC to form a larger bench to settle all conflicts related to election matters. Even Justice Isa in the Sheikh Rashid case had raised seven questions in this regard. However, former CJP Mian Saqib Nisar had not formed a larger bench on that matter.
Justice Isa also said the scope of Article 225, which specifically dealt with election disputes, also needed to be considered and whether on the principle of the “specific excluding the general '' this article excluded resorting to Article 184(3) of the Constitution in respect of individual election disputes.
He also questioned if an election dispute could be categorized as a matter of “public importance” and which particular fundamental right stands infringed that needed “enforcement”.

RO cannot disqualify a lawmaker for life: Supreme Court | The Express Tribune

Apex court says forum of returning officer lacks the attributes of a court of law

tribune.com.pk

 

[ghazi52]

SC directs BHC to review matter regarding buildings higher than 30 feet


The Frontier Post
August 24, 2020


ISLAMABAD (APP): The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday directed the Balo-chistan High Court (BHC) to review the matter of taking action against buildings higher than 30 feet.
A two-member bench of the apex court comprising Justice Mushir Alam and Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed heard the case.
During the course of proceedings, Advocate Aman Ullah Kunrani counsel for the private hospital said a hearing was held in the high court on August 18, in which his client was made a party.
He said the high court took action on a news item published in newspapers and decided the case without hearing his client.
He said the SC ruled in 2014 that the high court could not take suo moto action.
There were many buildings over thirty feet high, he said adding the high court’s own building was more than fifty feet high.
Later, the court directed the BHC to review the matter and disposed of the case.

 

[ghazi52]

SC cancels bail of 9 accused of brazen attack

The Frontier Post
August 24, 2020


ISLAMABAD (APP): The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday canceled the bail of nine accused of brazen assault.
The nine accused involved in brazen attack belonging to Mailsi Tehsil of Vehari District of Punjab had been arrested from the premises of the SC.
A two-member bench of the apex court comprising Justice Mushir Alam and Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed heard the case.
During the hearing, Zulfiqar Maluka counsel for the plaintiff and complainant Muhammad Shahbaz said the accused had harassed the women working in the agriculture fields in Mailsi area of Vehari district. When the women’s families came, the accused injured them with sticks, he added.

Justice Qazi Amin said several cases had already been registered against the accused.

He asked why did the accused come to the SC when the high court asked them to submit surety bonds?
The apex court rejected the bail pleas of accused including Mumtaz Ahmed, Ghulam Farid, Mazhar Hussain, Mohammad Akhtar, Mohammad Azhar, Zafar Iqbal, Azhar Mumtaz, Mazhar Mumtaz and Mohammad Iqbal.
It is pertinent to mention here that Muhammad Shahbaz filed an application of brazen attack against accused in Mailsi police station.

 

[Khan vilatey]

Is the Islamabad high court an agent of India and full of RAW agents ?

 

[ghazi52]

SC adjourns hearing regarding deforestation in KP for a week

The Frontier Post
August 25, 2020

ISLAMABAD (APP): The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday adjourned the hearing of a case pertaining to deforestation in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) for a week.
A two-member bench of the apex court comprising Justice Mushir Alam and Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed heard the case.
During the hearing, petitioner’s lawyer Iftikhar Gilani argued that Rs40 million of people were stuck so that he wanted to give detailed arguments in the case if allowed.
This was not my personal case but a public case, he added.
To this, Justice Qazi Amin addressing the counsel said he paid tribute to him for saving the public money.
The Supreme Court ordered rehearing of the case regarding the deforestation in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) at the request of lawyer Iftikhar Gilani.
SC issues notice to NAB in Anwar Majeed’s bail matter: The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday issued a notice to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in bail matter of Anwar Majeed, a main accused in fake bank accounts case.
A two-member bench of the apex court comprising Justice Mushir Alam and Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed heard the case.
During the course of proceedings, Justice Qazi Amin said Anwar Majeed wanted to travel abroad for medical treatment but the past experience in that regard was not good.
Advocate Munir A Malik counsel for Anwar Majeed said his client’s operation could only take place abroad.
He said the surgery suggested for Anwar Majeed was not successful in Pakistan.
The court after hearing arguments issued notice to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and sought reply till September 2.

 

[ghazi52]

SC fines Federal Ombudsman Secretariat over filing misleading application


The Frontier Post
August 25, 2020


ISLAMABAD (APP): The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday fined the Federal Ombudsman Secretariat Rs100,000 over filing an unnecessary and misleading application.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan announced the decision on a petition filed by the Federal Ombuds-man Secretariat against the Lahore High Court judgment. The decision was reserved on August 11.
The four-page judgment authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah stated, “The filing of this petition by the Wafaqi Mohtasib’s Secretariat through its secretary has left us concerned and disturbed. We, therefore, direct the Ombudsman to hold an inquiry into the matter and submit a report to this court within two months from today as to who had authorized the filing of the instant petition and the action taken against the concerned officials.”
The judgment stated, “This hopelessly misconceived petition passes for frivolous litigation and has resulted in wasting the time of the court. Therefore, this petition is dismissed with costs of Rs100,000 imposed under Order XXVIII, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The costs shall be deposited with any approved, recognized and well-known charitable organization and receipt thereof be submitted with the deputy registrar of this court (Lahore Registry) within two months from today. In case of failure to comply with the directions in this paragraph or paragraph 7 (above), the office shall fix this petition before the court for necessary orders. Leave is, therefore, declined and this petition stands dismissed with costs.” The order stated, “Ombudsman has no locus standi to challenge an order passed by the constitutional court that interprets its jurisdiction or powers under the law.”
Therefore, the instant petition filed by the Wafaqi Mohtasib’s Secretariat was hopelessly misconceived and not maintainable, it added.
The order stated, “Another way to look at it is that a neutral quasi judicial adjudicatory forum created under a statute cannot become a party to the proceedings brought before it. Such a forum is to simply to redress mal-administration by exercising its powers under the law.
The ombudsman by law and by design is not empowered to defend its decisions before a higher forum by becoming a party to the proceedings. This would totally tarnish its neutrality.”
The order further read, “Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the petition was filed by the ombudsman, as he was arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition. Still the question arises, whether the Ombudsman is an aggrieved person in the instant matter ? The answer to this question requires an understanding of the distinction between the two roles enjoyed by the Ombudsman under Order, 1983. One is personal, that relates to the terms and conditions of service of the Ombudsman; while the other is the neutral quasi-judicial institutional role (or statutory) of the Ombudsman to “redress and rectify” mal-administration. In the first case the Ombudsman can be (personally) aggrieved regarding any order that affects his terms and conditions of service under Order, 1983, as that would be affecting his rights to service under the law. However, in the second case, the ombudsman, cannot be said to be aggrieved, if the powers to redress mal-administration vested in him under the law are modified (enhanced or curtailed) by the Parliament or through interpretation of the constitutional court. Challenging the powers would be challenging the law and intent of the Parliament.
Ombudsman, being a creature of the statute, cannot challenge the powers vested in him by the legislature, however, the parties to the proceedings may bring such a challenge. The powers enjoyed by the Ombudsman cannot be confused with his rights under the law.”

 

[ghazi52]

‘No need for detailed verdict if SC upholds old order'


SC says court must elaborate reasons if it reverses, modifies lower court's judgment

August 26, 2020

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has said there is no need to issue a detailed judgment in cases where the top court adopts reasoning of the lower courts while adjudicating an appeal.
“If the apex court, having examined the judgment challenged before it, is satisfied with its reasoning and conclusions and is of the view that it does not call for any interference, this court can simply endorse the judgment and adopt the reasoning of the court below.
"In such a case, retracing the same path travelled by the court below appears to be an unnecessary exercise and a waste of public time – time which can be allocated to other cases where the decisions of the courts below have been overturned or modified,” said an order authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.
The three-page order was issued after hearing of a review petition filed against August 1, 2019 order of a Supreme Court bench. One of the grounds for filing the review petition was that the previous SC order had not cited any reason for rejecting the appeal.
“We have not been able to take any exception to the reasoning of the impugned judgment [of the high court] and are of the view that it does not warrant any interference. Leave is, therefore, declined and these petitions are dismissed," said the SC's previous short order.
Upholding the SC's August 1, 2019 order, Justice Shah noted that a concise, simple order can suffice if the apex court does not find a reversible error in the judgment of the lower court.
The order, however, clarified that if the court is to reverse or modify the judgment of the court below, the reasons for the reversal or modification must be set forth.
“Nothing is cast in stone. Old practices evolve with changing times. Burgeoning population and the corresponding rapid increase in litigation require imaginative solutions.”
The order noted that courts all over the world have moved on to efficient time and case management techniques. It said the new approach is by no means a short-cut offensive to fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution nor does it in any manner undermine due process and fair-play.
“It is simply a creative way forward that spares the court from writing opinions where a mere adoption of a well-reasoned judgment of the court below through a short order serves the purpose adequately.

 

[ghazi52]

Husband to pay Mehr in case of second marriage, says Supreme Court


Sabah
August 27, 2020

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday disposed of an appeal against immediate payment of Mehr from a husband to his wife.

The top court rejected the petition challenging the Peshawar High Court (PHC) decision and directed the applicant Jameel to immediately pay Mehr to his first wife Sajida Bibi. Muhammad Jameel married a second woman without the permission of his first wife. The five-page order was written by the Supreme Court Judge Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi. The case was heard by two-member bench headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial.

The husband has to pay Mehr to his first wife immediately in case of marrying for the second time, the court ordered while adding that the amount would be paid immediately even if the couple had agreed in the marriage documents to pay it afterwards.

The court further ordered that permission from the first wife or arbitration council would be mandatory for husband in case of a second marriage. The law regarding the second marriage is aimed at running the society’s affairs properly, the top court ruled adding that its violation could develop various complications.

The Supreme Court in its order said that it is now abundantly clear that the entire amount of dower fixed at the time of marriage whether prompt or deferred is immediately payable on account of second marriage. The petitioner, Muhammad Jamil, by entering into second marriage without seeking prior permission either from the existing wife Sajida Bibi or the Arbitration Council the dower even if it is termed deferred or prompt has become payable without any delay. Otherwise, the provision of section 6 of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance 1961 is in consonance with the injunctions of Islam.

The said provisions has not placed any restriction to contract second marriage, rather it only relates to seeking permission before entering into second marriage in order to regulate the structure of society as a whole. Any deviation from the provision of section 6 of Muslim Family Law Ordinance 1961 it might ensue a number of issues, which would frustrate the fabric of relationship within society, therefore, the judgment of the learned single bench of Peshawar High Court for immediate payment of dower (5 Tolas of gold) is quite in accordance with law.

So far as recovery of maintenance allowance is concerned learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any good reason qualifying interference into the judgment impugned before us.
The learned High Court has rightly declined the prayer hence no other exception is called for. As a consequence this petition is dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined.

 

[ghazi52]

Officials guilty of fraud can’t stay in govt service: Supreme Court

Apex court says such corrupt people could in no circumstances be treated leniently



Hasnaat Malik
August 29, 2020

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Gulzar Ahmed.


ISLAMABAD: The country’s top court has ruled that the government officials who are found involved in embezzlement of the state property or money can never be allowed to continue in employment.

“The government properties and the government funds are not to be doled out by the government officials, either to private persons or to themselves and such conduct amounts to fraud with government.
“The person(s) committing fraud or embezzlement of the government property or money could in no circumstances be treated leniently in disciplinary proceedings and in appropriate cases, be allowed to continue in the service,” said a five-page order authored by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Gulzar Ahmed.
The CJP – heading a division bench – issued the order on a petition filed against the Punjab Service Tribunal order to reinstate a senior revenue official, who had admitted that he illegally transferred government land measuring 270 kanals – situated in District Jhang – to private individuals.
A departmental inquiry had declared the official guilty and proposed his dismissal.

However, the Punjab Service Tribunal declared that the act of the revenue official was not misconduct and that the penalty of dismissal from service, was not commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
The tribunal had later converted the penalty imposed on the respondent by departmental authorities into forfeiture of two year’s approved service.
Setting aside the tribunal’s order, the apex court noted that its judgment was altogether misplaced – more particularly, when looked at from the point of view that the respondent had transferred/mutated government land in favour of private parties, causing huge loss to the government exchequer.

The order noted that the tribunal has for a considerable time been taking a lenient view of misconduct by government servants even where an employee of the department has admitted the commission of an offence constituting serious misconduct or the offence has been proved through inquiry.

“Despite this, the tribunal reduced the penalty imposed upon such an employee by the department, considering the same to be harsh and not commensurate with the gravity of the offence, without assigning any legally sustainable reasoning.


“[The tribunal only stated that it] enjoys “vast powers” under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 to confirm, set aside, vary or modify orders passed by the departmental authorities.”
The court asked as to how vast are these powers and whether these powers are discretionary – totally unstructured and unlimited – and they could be exercised at the whims of the tribunal.The order said once misconduct is established, it is the prerogative of the department to decide on the quantum of punishment, out of the various penalties provided in law.

“Unless the tribunal finds exercise of such prerogative by the departmental authority to be perverse and totally disproportionate to the gravity of the offence/misconduct for which reasons have to be recorded, the penalty imposed by the departmental authorities cannot be interfered with.

“Such reasons must be valid and meet the standards of logical and judicial reasoning,” it added.
The court observed that the powers of the tribunal under Section 5 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 – to confirm, set aside, vary or modify orders appealed against – are neither discretionary nor unbridled.

“Such powers have to be exercised cautiously, carefully and with circumspection where the order imposing the penalty is wholly perverse or ex-facie so demonstratably disproportionate and excessive for the offence/misconduct, that to let it stand would be unfair, unjust and inequitable.”
It stated that where powers are exercised under section 5 ibid, detailed reasons must be recorded justifying such exercise which would withstand the test of judicial scrutiny by this court.
The tribunal has in this case reduced the penalty without much ado and no reasoning although the respondent was found guilty of misconduct by all forums in all departmental proceedings, it said.
The court noted that the order of the tribunal is self contradictory in excess of jurisdiction and devoid of any reasoning let alone cogent and legally acceptable.

“The impugned judgment of the tribunal can therefore not be sustained. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Consequently, the order passed against the respondent for his dismissal from service is restored,” it said.

The apex court also ordered its office to supply the copy of this order to the chairman as well as members of the Federal Service Tribunal and all the provincial service tribunals.

While hearing another case, the apex court on August 10 ordered the Punjab government to remove a member of the Punjab Service Tribunal for declaring taking ‘illegal gratification/bribe’ a ‘minor offence’.

A three-judge bench, also led by CJP Gulzar Ahmed, had issued a nine-page order on an appeal filed against the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal Member-1 to restore service of a police official Muhammad Hanif who was found guilty of taking a bribe of Rs20,000.

 

[ghazi52]

Supreme Court suspends SHC judgement declaring sugar commission, its report illegal

Hearing of the case has been adjourned for a month


Hasnaat Malik
September 02, 2020

A file photo of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. PHOTO: EXPRESS


ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) suspended on Wednesday the Sindh High Court's (SHC) judgement that declared the sugar inquiry commission and its report illegal.

A three-member special judge bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Gulzar Ahmed also issued notices to the respondents over the federal government's petition.
The hearing of the case has been adjourned for a month.

Last week, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Javed Khan, on behalf of the federal government, filed a petition against the ruling on August 17. He stated that the SHC quashed the fact-finding report as well as the notifications for the inquiry commission under the Pakistan Commissions of Inquiry Act, 2017.
The government’s petition maintained that the SHC quashed the fact-finding report and the notifications on technical grounds, as the summary for constituting the commission was initiated by the interior ministry rather than the Cabinet Division. The petition further stated that the notifications were published belatedly in the official gazette.

This was despite the fact that the summary for appointing all seven members of the commission was duly approved by the federal cabinet and none of the sugar manufacturers, including the respondents, ever did or could claim lack of knowledge of the proceedings of the commission.
The petition further maintained that the commission also fully interacted with the Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PSMA), of which the respondent manufacturers were members. They could not show any prejudice whatsoever owing to the fact that the summary was initiated by the Interior Division, which in any case merged in the final approval of the cabinet, nor due to any delay in the publication of the notification in the gazette, the petition upheld.


“It is submitted with profound respect and humility that the bench grossly erred in law and facts and based the judgement on the completely unjustified assumption that the aggrieved party, in this case, is the group of manufacturers of sugar,” the petition said.
In a surprising move, the Sindh High Court had on August 17 quashed the sugar inquiry commission's report declaring it illegal.

A two-judge SHC bench led by Justice KK Agha announced the judgement , stating that the notification regarding the constitution of sugar commission was illegal.

The decision was, however, not to prevent authorities including the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) from proceeding against sugar mill owners in accordance with law, and without any reference to or reliance on the report.

 

[ghazi52]

Judicial system of country fully codified by laws: CJP


Says legal system had evolved through indigenous experiences


APP
September 04, 2020

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed on Thursday observed that the judicial system of the country was fully codified by laws and its practices were also governed by rules and regulations.

The top judge made these remarks while addressing the participants of National Security and War Course 2021 during their visit to the Supreme Court.
Welcoming the participants, the chief justice said that the main purpose of the war course participants’ visit to the apex court was to get an orientation on the judicial system of the country.

He said like other countries of the world, Pakistan also had its own judicial system.

“The judicial system in Pakistan, as it is now, had its own history of evolution and was rooted in the times of Hindu rule of India, Muslim rule of India and the British colonial period,” he said.

The top judge noted that after the end of British rule in the year 1947 and the creation of the independent state of Pakistan, the judicial system had evolved further through indigenous experiences.

“Indeed, this process of refinement is ongoing and shall keep continuing,” he said.

Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed observed that as an introduction, it was essential to mention some basic features having relevance to the judiciary in Pakistan.
Pakistan is a federal republic known as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Article 1 of the constitution provides for the same, he said.

"It has four federating territories that are the provinces of Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab and Sindh, alongside the Islamabad Capital Territory. Article 175 of the constitution deals with the judicature and provides that there shall be a Supreme Court of Pakistan and a high court for each province and the Islamabad Capital Territory, and such other courts that may be established by law," he said.

Furthermore, by a Presidential Order No1 of 1980, Chapter 3A was added to the constitution by which the Federal Shariat Court was constituted.

“The most likely way of explaining the judicial system of Pakistan, as regards ordinary cases, and I say ordinary cases for the reason that there are also special courts and tribunals created by law to deal with special cases and their hierarchy is also provided by such laws. There is a four-tier judicial system operating in Pakistan, both for ordinary civil and ordinary criminal cases," he said.

The chief justice noted that the lowest rank of civil courts was called the court of a civil judge.
He said that in this court, all civil suits originate except in the territory of Karachi, where the high court had also been given original civil jurisdiction to try suits having pecuniary value of Rs15 million and above for the territory of Karachi.

He said that the suits valued at less than these pecuniary values in the territory of Karachi originate in the court of a civil judge.
The second tier is the court of district judge, which exercises revisional and appellate jurisdiction against the judgments, orders and decrees passed by the courts of civil judge.

The third tier is the high court, which exercises revisional and appellate jurisdiction over the judgments, orders and decrees passed by the district judges.
The fourth tier is the Supreme Court, which is the final court of appeal against the judgments, orders and decrees passed by the High Courts.

The top judge observed that the judgments, orders and decrees passed by the Supreme Court were enforceable throughout the country and where it was to be executed in a province it was executed by the high court of the said province.

tribune.com.pk

 

[ghazi52]

Apex court allows company to hire counsel in WD case


The Frontier Post
September 8, 2020

ISLAMABAD (APP): The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the private construction company to hire a counsel in Winder Dam (WD) case.

A two-member bench of the apex court comprising Justice Mushir Alam and Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed heard the case regarding construction of Winder Dam in Lasbeela, Balochistan.
During the course of proceedings, Justice Mushir Alam said that the court could not stop the national project of dams added that stopping construction of the dam would increase its cost.
The CEO of a private construction company pleaded the court to grant four weeks time to hire a counsel in the matter.

Justice Mushir Alam said if the cost of the project increases, the company would have to pay.
Justice Qazi Amin said that stopping work on the dam would increase Rs 10 billion plan to Rs 50 billion.
He said that the auction process of the project should be transparent and warned that no one would be spared if the auction process went wrong.

He remarked unfortunately, only 60% of the total amount was spent on such projects.
Later, the court adjourned hearing of the case till Wednesday.
The Balochistan High Court had ordered for open auction for the construction of the dam.
The Balochistan government had challenged the decision of the Balochistan High Court in the Supreme Court.