Public Functionaries

Where a statute confers a power upon a public authority for promotion of a public good, exercise of that power becomes a duty when the circumstances for its exercise arise.

The higher the office, the higher the responsibility.

Whether reasonableness of force to be assessed by reference to criminal law test relating to self-defence or civil law test

Held, that the test to be applied in disciplinary proceedings in relation to the use of force by a police officer in self-defence is the civil law test.

Terms of grant may include conditions and limitations which have to be complied with and applied as required even if grant is ostensibly in open and untrammelled form.

While the right to access to courts is a cornerstone of the Constitutional framework, it is not an unqualified or limitless right

Such access must be exercised with responsibility and in a manner that upholds the dignity and finality of judicial proceedings

When public institutions initiate repetitive and meritless petitions they erode the integrity of the judicial process

Frivolous litigation not only clogs judicial dockets but also drains public resources and delays justice for genuine litigants

This become more concerning when such frivolous claims are filed by government or public statutory functionaries, who are expected to act with higher responsibility and to protect, rather than squander, public resources and judicial time

When public bodies initiate litigation, they do so not as private litigants pursuing personal interests, but as custodians of the law and fiduciaries of the public interest and they are under an onerous obligation to act fairly, responsibly, and in accordance with the Constitution

Public statutory functionaries should exercise greater legal discipline and internal scrutiny before invoking the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Respondent-authority while passing the impugned order denied the request of the petitioner with the requirement of obtaining fresh NOCs

Validity

Respondent-authority while passing the order had not referred to any rules whatsoever and straightway directed to furnish fresh report/NOCs without giving any valid lawful reasons

Impugned order did not fulfill the requirements of a speaking order within the contemplation of S.24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which binds the public functionaries to dilate upon all aspects of the matters presented before them, while determining rights of the parties and decide the same after application of mind, assigning cogent reasons and pass speaking orders

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances with a direction to respondent-authority to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law and rules through a speaking order.

Public functionaries are bound to dilate upon all aspects of the matters presented before them, while determining rights of the parties, and decide the same after application of mind, assigning cogent reasons and passing speaking orders.

Land-owners voluntarily transferred their land (measuring 10 kanals) in favour of the Government / Health Department for the specified purpose of establishing Basic Health Unit (BHU), however, at the time of final approval the Provincial Cabinet declined the same on the ground that two BHUs were already operational in the said vicinity

Land-owners filed constitutional petition to retrieve/return their land but said relief was declined

Validity

Record reveals that Government decided to abandon project after the lapse of more than nineteen years

It is inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law as envisaged by Art. 4 of the Constitution

Hence, it is the duty and obligation of every public functionary, including the Respondents / Department, to act within the four corners of the mandate of the Constitution

High Court set-aside the impugned order passed by Single Bench of High Court; consequently, the concerned Department (Respondent) would return the subject land to the appellants by reversing the relevant mutations and restoring the ownership to the original owner/owners or his/their legal heirs

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Land-owners voluntarily transferred their land (measuring 10 kanals) in favour of the Government / Health Department for the specified purpose of establishing Basic Health Unit (BHU), however, at the time of final approval the Provincial Cabinet declined the same on the ground that two BHUs were already operational in the said vicinity

Land-owners filed constitutional petition to retrieve/return their land but said relief was declined

Validity

Admittedly 10 kanals of land was transferred in favour of the Respondent / Department specifically for the establishment of BHU for the benefit of local vicinity but the Government's decision to abandon such project after the lapse of more than nineteen years amounts to failure of the basic condition upon which the land was transferred

The "doctrine of resulting trust" is attracted in such situations, where the land should revert to the original owners to prevent unjust enrichment by the State

The Government has taken no steps for the implementation of the proposed project and the subject land remains unutilized as is evident from fresh report sought by High Court

It is evident that land was admittedly transferred to the Respondent / Department for specific purpose that was not fulfilled till date

When property is transferred to the Government for a specific purpose and that purpose is not fulfilled, the transaction stands frustrated and the Government cannot retain such property for indefinite or alternative use without the consent of the donors

It is not permissible for the Government to retain the land as the underlying intention of the transfer no longer subsists and said aspect of the matter has totally been ignored by the Single Judge, while passing the impugned order

High Court set-aside the impugned order passed by Single Bench of High Court; consequently, the concerned Department (Respondent ) would return the subject land to the appellants by reversing the relevant mutations and restoring the ownership to the original owner/owners or his/their legal heirs

Intra-Court Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

No lawful mandate could be extended to any functionary to prescribe a criteria in his own wisdom in a manner not ordained by law.

Such acts and orders deserve due regard by Courts, and every possible explanation for their validity should be explored, and the whole field of powers in pursuance of which the public authorities act or perform their functions should be examined, and only then if it is found that the act done, order made or proceedings undertaken is without lawful authority should the Courts declare them to be of no legal effect.

Such acts and orders deserve due regard by Courts, and every possible explanation for their validity should be explored, and the whole field of powers in pursuance of which the public authorities act or perform their functions should be examined, and only then if it is found that the act done, order made or proceedings undertaken is without lawful authority should the Courts declare them to be of no legal effect.

All acquittals including acquittal on compromise are honorable for the reason that prosecution does not succeed to prove its case against accused on the strength of evidence of unimpeachable character

There can be no acquittals, which may be said to be dishonorable

Law has not drawn any distinction between any types of acquittals.

All acquittals including acquittal on compromise are honorable for the reason that prosecution does not succeed to prove its case against accused on the strength of evidence of unimpeachable character

There can be no acquittals, which may be said to be dishonorable

Law has not drawn any distinction between any types of acquittals.

In a polity functioning under the Constitution, the concept of de facto power is akin to the concept of brute force, which is devoid of legitimacy

Only power that is clothed with legality and legitimacy is that which flows from the law and the Constitution and is thus de jure

Existence and exercise of de facto power in a state administered under a Constitution is the manifestation of weak Constitutionalism and speaks to the need to reduce the gap between the law and its implementation

Courts of law established under the Constitution and exercising authority vested by law, can never recognize or legitimize de facto power (referred to as 'ground realities' in the vernacular)

Doing so would delegitimize the Courts themselves

In a rule of law, system, power and responsibility go hand-in-hand

Any public official who is vested with authority and exercises it in the name of the State and its citizens, cannot shun the responsibility that comes with exercise of power

Deputy Commissioner or police officer has no authority other than that vested by law and no jurisdiction to exercise it except as mandated by law

Actions of public officials are protected by law in so far as they are backed by it

Their source of authority over fellow citizens is the authority of law, not personal authority that can be exercised at whim or on the basis of an illegal command

Public officials are responsible and accountable for their actions just as private citizens, if not more

Doctrine of agency underlying personal liability is fully applicable to the actions of public office holders.

Constitution and the law envisage that public officials, as representatives of the executive arm of the State, have to exercise State authority as a trust to uphold and enforce the law in the interest of citizens of Pakistan

It cannot be countenanced that public officials would wield the law as a weapon to oppress their fellow citizens and deny them their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution

It can also not be conceived that public officials serving as part of the executive branch of the State would wield their powers to undermine and frustrate decisions rendered by the judicial branch of the State.

All judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authorities while exercising mandatory or discretionary jurisdiction must follow the rule of fair exercise of power in a reasonable manner and must ensure the dispensation of justice according to spirit of law

Exercise of power in unreasonable manner is not proper and in such a case the process initiated/order issued by the authorities is not immune from judicial review.

If it comes to discretion, every authority, whether original, appellate or revisional, must exercise it reasonably and fairly

Courts may set aside an action in exercise of the power of judicial review if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational, unreasonable or perverse.

Certain categories are available of cases where the courts have required reasons to be given at common law, although the jurisprudence is relatively under-developed, perhaps because statutory requirements are so common

Apart from cases where fairness requires it, or a particular decision is aberrant, the duty has also been imposed where the failure to give reasons may frustrate a right of appeal, because without reasons a party will not know whether there is an appealable ground or not … and where a party has a legitimate expectation that reasons will be given.

Those include improving the quality of decisions by focusing the mind of the decision-making body and thereby increasing the likelihood that the decision will be lawfully made; promoting public confidence in the decision-making process; providing, or at least facilitating, the opportunity for those affected to consider whether the decision was lawfully reached, thereby facilitating the process of judicial review or the exercise of any right of appeal; and respecting the individual's interest in understanding and perhaps thereby more readily accepting why a decision affecting him has been made.

Functions and business of each and every department is to be carried out under the well described manifest written jurisdiction and each portfolio has to exercise its powers with the described precincts of its jurisdiction and any transgression whereof would be considered as illegal.

All acts should be done by the public functionaries in a transparent manner after applying judicious mind and fulfilling all requirements

Public functionaries are supposed to adhere to the principle of transparency in performing their duties and are not bound to carry out /implement any order which is not in accordance with law and they are only obliged to carry out the lawful orders of their superiors and if they are being pressurized to implement an illegal order they should stay out and record their dissenting notes.

Public functionaries are required to act within the parameters of law and are not permitted to proceed on their whims and desires.

Government functionaries are under bounden duty to perform their duties strictly in accordance with law.

Early decision on the representation/appeal of an aggrieved person is an inherent right of every citizen and such public functionary shall not keep the representation/appeal of an aggrieved person undecided for an indefinite period

Authority, officer or person making any order or issuing any direction shall provide a copy of the order to the person affected prejudicially, and he is also supposed to give reasons in support of the decisions, orders, especially when someone is deprived of his vested right.

Held, it has been statutorily provided that every public functionary shall exercise the jurisdiction vested in it reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment.

Petitioner sought direction to respondents for removal of unauthorized public transport terminals/stands/Adda located at different locations in the city

Validity

Administration with implementation of government policy is backbone of government

One of the important reasons is practical concern that government today has to work towards public interest

First and foremost object of public administration is to effectively deliver public services

District and sub-divisional administration have a special status in implementing policies of government

Law requires district administration to be organized and effectively operate for increasing productivity quickly

Such aspects have given birth to new subdiscipline of development administration

When authorities could not maintain elimination/closure of illegal stands/Adda, which on one hand was their duty, requirement of law and on the other hand was right of citizens

Law had provided a mechanism for bus terminals/stands and for its smooth implementation regional transport authority was to play an effective role

Any failure in implementation of law amounted to negligence/mal-administration on their part which could raise question

Public functionaries were expected to perform their duties well within the prescribed limits of law of land

When a thing was required to be done in a particular manner, it must be made in that manner and not otherwise

Duties of respondents/functionaries of government were to act in accordance with law by not allowing anyone to do as per his desire and wish

To maintain law and order situation and to implement policies of government was the duty of authorities

High Court directed the authorities to close all illegal stands/terminals/Adda in the entire district

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Discretion vested with the public authorities should be exercised with reasonableness.

One ministry or wing of the Federal Government is not authorized or permitted to exercise powers of the other; as they act under different Acts and spheres.

Authorities exercising quasi-judicial powers under a statute are bound to conduct fair adjudication.

Public functionaries are fiduciaries required to act in a just, fair and reasonable manner.

Government functionaries cannot exercise any discretion to become selective, discriminatory and distinctive in applying their discretion with reference to the persons within one class and where conditions for extending benefits of such decisions are the same for all that particular class of persons.

Dispensation of justice is not only to be administered by the Courts of law but by every organ and functionary of the State in whichever capacity he is performing any duty

Obligatory upon public functionary to do justice in performance of his assigned liabilities.

In fact, all public power is a trust and has to be exercised fairly, honestly and in the interest of public.

Such power is always guided by the principles of good conscience and justice.

Government functionaries have to act fairly, justly, equitably and reasonably.

Law does not allow issuance of any rigmorale and zigzag issuance of orders.

Public functionaries are under legal obligation to decide controversies between the parties with reasons.

Public functionaries dealing with rights and obligations of persons are required to give valid reasons in their orders which are likely to operate adversely against such persons.

Public functionaries must act honestly, fairly in matters of contracts regarding public interest.

Government functionaries have to act fairly, justly, equitably and reasonably.

Law does not allow issuance of any rigmorale and zigzag issuance of orders.

Public functionaries are under legal obligation to decide controversies between the parties with reasons.

Public functionaries dealing with rights and obligations of persons are required to give valid reasons in their orders which are likely to operate adversely against such persons.

Public functionaries must act honestly, fairly in matters of contracts regarding public interest.

Authority who has issued an order or done any act cannot subsequently take the stance that the order issued or action taken by it was against the law.

Public functionaries were not to follow illegal orders of higher authorities.

Public duty cannot be exercised arbitrarily, whimsically or in disregard of law and principles of natural justice.

Public functionaries were to exercise their powers in good faith in the public interest and not on the basis of personal like or dislike or on the basis of whims and fancies.

Public functionaries to function in good faith.