Responsibility

2025 CLC 1995 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 17General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 21Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionLocus poenitentiae, principle ofApplicabilityAdmission testResponsibilityUnfair means, use ofRe-examinationJurisdiction

Provincial Government scrapped the result of MDCAT conducted for admissions to Medical and Dental Colleges and had directed for testing afresh

Validity

Provincial Government under S. 17 of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2023 was empowered alone to conduct MDCAT examination

Provincial Government had the authority to cancel the examination in terms of S. 2l of General Clauses Act, 1897

Provincial Government could not exercise such authority in vacuum unless there was sufficient material before Provincial Government justifying or even requiring for cancellation of examination

Unfair means were used in the examination on a very large scale and there was a racket behind the same

It was evident from report of Joint Investigation Team that it was a premeditated scheme of an organized group who devised scientifically sophisticated equipment for unfair means which were available in the market against a handsome amount

Though, only 219 persons were found involved using such devices, however, keeping in view the character and design of the devices which were not easily visible, there was a strong probability that a good number of students had used the devices

Candidates who were opposing re-testing had no vested right in the examination conducted by authorities

Provincial Government had the locus poenitentiae of re-testing

Re-testing would cause no prejudice to the candidates because if they had confidence in their abilities and intellect, then in the next examination they could again attain a better position

If the examination was not re-conducted, the candidates who were involved in unfair means would be in advantageous position as compared to those students who had worked hard and burnt midnight oil while preparing for the examination

High Court declared that when mass cheating was unearthed by Joint Investigation Team, the Provincial Government rightly cancelled MDCAT and such decision of Provincial Government cancelling the MDCAT and its direction for re-taking of MDCAT was in accordance with its mandate and did not call for any interference

High Court directed Provincial Government to conduct MDCAT within the time period as provided by the cabinet (six weeks) ensuring transparency in the examination

High Court directed Medical and Dental Council to notify to Provincial Government after consulting admitting university as well as Provincial Government a date for MDCAT across the Province within a time period of six-weeks

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

2024 PCrLJ 772 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Pauper counselResponsibility

Counsel who accepts a dock-brief and for a fee paid by the state undertakes to defend a prisoner without trying to know anything about the case offends against the tradition of his profession

If such counsel is not ready for the defense, it is his duty to ask for time and if necessary for adjournment

Unseeming hurry makes defense in important cases of crime impossible and is likely to affect result of the trial.

2024 YLR 2685 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 88, 89, 90, 117 & 118Capital Development Authority Ordinance (XXIII of 1960), Ss. 11, 12 & 13Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act (IV of 2020), Ss. 5, 7 & 26Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 140A & 199Constitutional petitionAmenities, providing ofResponsibilityProperty tax, imposing ofJurisdiction

Petitioner was an allottee of a plot in Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Society (FGEHA) and was aggrieved of absence of municipal services in the Society and imposing of taxes by FGEHA as well as by Islamabad Capital Territory Local Government

Validity

FGEHA could not impose any property tax within the specified sectors on their own as they lacked people representation and political authority on behalf of the residents of the specified area, which had already been extended in terms of the Constitutional mandate under Art.140A of the constitution to Local Government system under the Islamabad Capital Territory Local Government Act, 2015

High Court directed Federal Government to issue notification in exercise of its authority under Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act, 2020, as well as under Islamabad Capital Territory Local Government Act, 2015, to exclude FGEHA to enforce property tax within specified area and mechanism of property tax in terms of Ss. 88, 89 and 90 of Islamabad Capital Territory Local Government Act, 2015, read with its rules in prescribed manner had to be applied even in specified sectors of FGEHA

Utility services within specified area of FGEHA had to be provided by the Authority at their own end and they could charge necessary expenditures approved by the Executive Board in terms of S.5 of Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act, 2020, whereby Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad would not claim any amount or charges for utility services within the specified area from the residents

On the principle of quid pro quo if property tax was enforced, applied and recovered under Islamabad Capital Territory Local Government system under the law and within the specified area of FGEHA, the Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad would provide services at the door steps of specified sectors including but not limited to main water supply line, reservoirs, collection of garbage, maintenance of sewerage system etc. externally to those specified sectors of FGEHA through joint arrangement or any other mechanism could be devised accordingly

Collection with respect to recovery of property tax if made by Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad from specified area/sector of FGEHA, the said amount was only meant for the use, development of the specified sectors, and same could not be spent anywhere else in Islamabad Capital Territory and even the property tax so collected would be maintained in separate account

Local Government representative under Islamabad Capital Territory Local Government Act, 2015, from the specified area of FGEHA would represent those residents within the local government assembly for their issues and any resolution to that extent was to be adopted by FGEHA

Federal Government Employees Housing Authority would provide complete infrastructure within the specified sector at their own end and could charge the services provided by them to the inhabitants in the specified areas under the notified rules accordingly

High Court directed FGEHA to provide graveyard, parks and other amenities within the specified sectors at their own end as they had already charged respective amounts from allottees/ residents at the time of their allotments and had undertaken to provide facilities/ amenities according to their layout plan in terms of their agreements, commitments with the CDA (Master Regulator)

Federal Government Employees Housing Authority could not resile or rescind any of the agreed terms of their agreements with CDA as the same had been given protection by Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act, 2020

High Court further directed FGEHA to notify their rules and regulations in terms of S.26 of Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act, 2020, in all subjects including but not limited to the powers and functions defined in S.5 of Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act, 2020, as well as the powers available to the Director General in terms of S.7 of Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act, 2020

High Court directed Islamabad Capital Territory Local Government to also notify the bylaws in terms of S.118 of Islamabad Capital Territory Local Government Act, 2015, if required by the Government, however, in terms of S.117 of Islamabad Capital Territory Local Government Act, 2015, the Government would notify all rules necessary for carrying out the purpose of Islamabad Capital Territory Local Government Act, 2015, including financial rules to deal with Local Government Fund for its maintenance and development within the Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad (MCI) jurisdiction, if already not notified

Capital Development Authority had no jurisdiction to apply and enforce their authority in specified sector of FGEHA except in terms of Ss.11, 12 and 13 of Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960

All building regulations, bye-laws of Capital Development Authority or Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad were applicable in specified sectors of FGEHA in terms of S.3 (5) of Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act, 2020

Federal Government Employees Housing Authority was also a local authority in specified area and was responsible for all public services and facilities in terms of S.3 (4) of Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act, 2020

Federal Government Employees Housing Authority could issue notice of violation or encroachments to any person within specified sector but could not proceed against delinquent individual for violation by themselves directly rather was dependent upon District Collector or the Magistrate 1st Class for any punishment under the law

Enforcement authority for all violation generally vested with Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad under Islamabad Capital Territory Local Government Act, 2015, who in collaboration could initiate joint action in specified sectors with FGEHA in a coordinated manner

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2021 PLD 6 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 4Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Rules, 1983, R. 3(i)Management of ZooResponsibility

In Islamabad Capital Territory, management of Zoo is within the domain of the Board of Management constituted under Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979, and such is one of its crucial functions

Zoo, its management and all other matters relating thereto fall within the jurisdiction and competence of Board of Management constituted under Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979.

2020 CLC 1691 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S.5 & Sched.Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.19Marriageconsent of womanNecessityScopeGuardian of womanResponsibilityScopeVoidability of agreement without free consentScopeGuardians are enjoined by Islam to get their daughters married after getting their consent

Consent of a woman is necessary; she cannot be compelled to enter into a marriage contract without her free will and consent

If a girl is married to a person who is not of her choice and girl signs the nikahnama unwillingly by force or fear of her guardian, the same cannot be termed as valid marriage, because guardian's consent is no substitute for the girl's consent.

2019 CLC 1020 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

R. 6Functions of Federal GovernmentResponsibility

Cabinet is actually responsible for all functions of Federal Government and not the Prime Minister alone.

2018 PLD 274 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 3National Book Foundation Act (XIX of 1972), S. 6Textbooks, development ofResponsibility

Petitioners were authors of National Book Foundation who assailed tender notice/advertisement published by Federal Government inviting applications from publishers for their pre-qualifications for development of textbooks

Plea raised by petitioners was that it was jurisdiction of the National Book Foundation to get textbooks published

Validity

Responsibility for preparation of curricula and manuscripts of textbooks was with Curriculum Wing and same was under administrative control of Federal Government and did not have a legal personality of its own

National Book Foundation was not prevented from participating in competitive process in response to tender notice

National Book Foundation was not petitioner before High Court and petitioners were affiliated with National Book Foundation who had authored textbooks as per old curriculum

Neither National Book Foundation nor petitioners participated in competitive process in response to tender notice therefore, they did not have locus standi to challenge the same

Neither National Book Foundation Act, 1972 nor Federal Supervision of Curricula, Textbooks, Maintenance of Standards of Education Act, 1976 were Provincial statutes to extent of their applicability to Islamabad Capital Territory therefore, power to issue tender notice in question did not vest in Chief Commissioner Islamabad Capital Territory

Curriculum Wing was competent to prepare or caused to prepare curricula and manuscripts of textbooks under S. 3(2)(a) of Federal Supervision of Curricula, Textbooks, Maintenance of Standards of Education Act, 1976

High Court declined to interfere in tender notice in question

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 PCrLJ 854 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

R. 5(9)(b)Policy of governmentExecutionResponsibility

Provisions of R. 5(9)(b) of Rules of Business, 1973, fix responsibility upon the Secretary being Head of Ministry for efficient administration and discipline as well as due execution of sanctioned policy.

2016 CLD 1202 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 41State Bank of Pakistan Regulations Nos. III & XVIIINegligenceResponsibility

Officer of Bank who is also responsible for disbursement, if acts negligently or omits to take enough care in extending/advancing finance facilities by ignoring State Bank of Pakistan's regulations applicable at the time of advancing finance facility, then such officer is liable to suffer

Bank would be justified in taking appropriate and lawful action against responsible officials pertaining to recovery of losses/or taking action for commission of guilt of a criminal breach of trust.

2015 CLC 616 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionAdministration of justiceResponsibility

Grievance of petitioner was that order passed by High Court in earlier petition filed by her had not been implemented in letter and spirit

Validity

Held, it was not duty of the Courts only to provide justice to people but it was also duty of every organ and functionaries to provide justice by discharging their duties in accordance with law

Functionaries of the State were expected to give due respect to dictum laid down by superior Courts, which was not congenial and conducive for existence of country but also to run the State smoothly with mutual cooperation, respect and understanding

High Court directed the authorities to finalize proceedings by implementing order of High Court passed on 28-1-2010, in letter and spirit, without any further delay

Petition was allowed accordingly.

2014 MLD 1824 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.26 (6), 26-A & 36Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.18 & 199Constitutional petitionElectricity, right ofHolders of public officeResponsibilityElectric Supply Company did not restore supply of electricity, despite clear direction by Electrical InspectorValidity

Holders of public / statutory offices are fiduciaries and trustees for people of Pakistan and when performing functions of their offices, they can have no interest other than the interests of people of Pakistan

Basis of fiduciary relation is exclusive benefit principle, according to which fiduciary has a duty to act solely in the interest of beneficiary

People of Pakistan are not only the beneficiaries but also principal of trust given to the statutory functionaries

Legal imperative fiduciaries must act in the best interest of principal and perform their functions with care and complete fidelity

Right to have electricity is a vested right and is right of livelihood

Right to livelihood is an inalienable right of a person

Electricity makes life meaningful, complete and worth living

Business of petitioner was dependent upon supply of electricity by Supply Company, inaction on the part of the Company had come within the mischief of Art. 18 of the Constitution

High Court directed Electric Supply Company to implement decision of Electrical Inspector in three days

Petition was allowed accordingly.

2014 PLD 630 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 20Private media groups/companiesResponsibilityCompliance with the Constitution, relevant law, rules and regulations

Free access to public at large provided by Government to the private media groups/companies cast a great responsibility upon them not only to abide by the Constitution, law, rules and regulations but also to ensure that a certain discipline and restraint was demonstrated by them which may not only serve the purpose of the Constitution and law but may also be helpful in creating a better civilized society which was well informed, more educated, tolerant and capable of forming correct opinions on religious, political, social, national or international issues and to take right decisions in their individual as well as collective lives.

2013 PLC(CS) 200 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionCivil serviceAppointmentIllegal appointmentResponsibility

Petitioners were recruited by authorities and after they joined service, their appointment letters were cancelled on the ground that they were not domiciled of the Province but were residents of Islamabad Capital Territory

Validity

Domicile in particular Province was not such qualification without which an appointee could not properly perform his duties; it was only a mode of making appointments in an area from amongst its residents

Such factor had to be considered in order to safeguard rights of residents of a particular Union council, Tehsil, District or a Province at the time of appointment

Authorities had demanded and considered domiciles of petitioners and had held them legible for appointment, who during the course of their service did not incur any fresh disability

Petitioner did not become physically or mentally incapacitated and had not changed their places of abode and also not made any false statement or produced any false certificates that would have misled the authorities

Petitioners were petty servants and nature of their assignments were only to facilitate petitioners to earn their livelihood, which was their basic and fundamental right

Appointing authority, in case of an illegal appointment was to be punished and not the petitioners, who if punished would be deprived of their right to earn livelihood and would be disabled to perform their duties towards their dependants

Cancellation of appointment orders in favour of petitioner not hailing from the Province, even if having been passed illegally, would generate misunderstanding and hatred amongst the people of various Provinces and Federal Capital Territory

High Court declared orders terminating service of petitioners as illegal and the same were set aside

Constitutional Petition was allowed in circumstances.

2012 CLD 1915 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 2(c)IndemnifierResponsibility

Indemnifier cannot be made liable for more than the amount for which he had agreed to indemnify.

2011 CLD 790 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 10Leave to defend the suitBanking CourtResponsibilityDocuments to be appreciatedBanking Court dismissed leave to defend application filed by defendants and decreed the suit in favour of bank

Plea raised by defendants was that besides raising various preliminary objections, they had also framed questions of law but Banking Court without appreciating the same dismissed leave to defend the suit application

Validity-While deciding leave to defend application, heavy responsibility rested upon Banking Court to appreciate not only the contents of plaint but also leave to defend application and replication, if any filed

In order to pass a speaking order with sound reasoning, it was necessary to look into facts of the case and also consider documents attached with plaint, leave to defend application and replication

After going through entire pleadings of parties, it was obligatory upon Banking Court to decide question of law raised in leave to defend application and not to dismiss or reject it in perfunctory and cursory manner

In banking suit it was a sole opportunity for defendants to apply for leave to defend and their entire future rested upon its decision, therefore, in all fairness defendants had legitimate right to be heard and all questions of law and facts raised in leave to defend application should be answered by Banking Court for the reason that on rejection of leave to defend, defendants were to go out of arena without any further opportunity to defend

Judgment and decree passed by Banking Court against defendants and order dismissing leave to defend application could not be sustained and the same was set aside

High Court remanded the case to Banking Court to decide leave to defend application afresh in accordance with law

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2010 PLD 374 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

ResponsibilityScope

Dispensation of justice is not alone the function of court, public functionaries are equally responsible to treat all citizens placed in similar circumstances alike

Though under trichotomy of power, it is the. Legislature that makes law, executive through public and statutory functionary make policies and implement law, whereas enunciation, interpretation and exposition of law is the function of Judiciary

When a particular law, rules, regulation, policy etc., is expounded and enunciated by superior courts, it is binding on all

For safe administration of justice, it is duty of public and statutory functionary to apply law, rule, regulation, notification or the policy etc., as enunciation, interpretation and expounded by superior courts with all its implication and or ramification affecting person or group of person coming within its net, whether they have approached the Court or not.