Factual controversy

Petitioner was one of the legal heirs of deceased tenant of the land who was denied extension of tenancy in his favour on the allegations of violation of tenancy conditions

Validity

Allegation against petitioner, who was son of the previous lessee, pertaining to lifting of soil from leased land could not, in the absence of a proper inquiry, be treated as a conclusive violation of tenancy conditions

Petitioner's stance was that was soil was removed only to level the land and improve irrigation after getting permission, which required factual verification at the spot, particularly when the record showed that no on-ground inquiry was ever conducted before recording findings adverse to petitioner

Petitioner also claimed that period of lease was extended and the same was evident from the letter addressed by District Remount Officer, Sahiwal to the District Collector

It was for such precise reason that the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), while allowing appeal rightly remanded the matter to District Collector with the direction to obtain a site report from Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), in presence of legal heirs of the deceased tenant and other relevant persons so that the issue of alleged violation could be determined on sound factual footing

Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, while passing order in question failed to appreciate such legal and factual position and did not advert to mandatory procedural requirement of conducting proper factual inquiry before upholding resumption of tenancy, thereby committing material illegality

High Court restored order passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue) as the same reflected correct legal approach and ensured adherence to the policy governing Horse Breeding Tenancies as well as principles of natural justice

High Court directed District Collector, to conduct a comprehensive and factual inquiry into the allegations raised against entitlement of petitioner

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Matter involved seriously disputed and contentious questions of facts, including but not limited to ownership of subject land, legality of possession, existence of alleged village, applicability of 2008 policy and competing claims of different respondents

Petitioners and authorities had taken divergent factual stands which could not be resolved without recording of evidence

Disputed questions of fact, particularly those requiring evidence, examination of documents and determination of title or possession cannot be adjudicated in Constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution

Constitutional Court does not function as a Trial Court to resolve factual controversies or to conduct roving inquiries

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as declaration of entitlement, regularization of land and issuance of lease involved exercise of statutory and administrative functions by competent authorities and the same could not be substituted by Constitutional Court in absence of clear violation of law or mala fide exercise of power established on admitted facts

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was awarded a two-year vending contract through an open auction conducted by Pakistan Railways pursuant to a public notice

Petitioner deposited 30% of the bid amount, i.e., Rs.1,683,000, with the respondents

Allotment pertained to vending services, and subsequent to commencement of the contract, the petitioner's vending operations were regulated in terms of items permitted for sale and the number of salespersons authorized under the allotment order and applicable railway policy, during which period the petitioner's vending activity ultimately ceased

Held: Matter at hand emanated solely from a contractual dispute between the parties

The document annexed by the petitioner himself demonstrated that the petitioner was authorized to vend only twelve items and to operate through no more than four salespersons, in accordance with the terms explicitly set forth in the contractual letter, hence, the very basis of his claim stood contradicted by his own annexures

Furthermore, the petitioner had concealed a material fact viz. institution of a civil suit, wherein, plaint was rejected

Such concealment, coupled with the petitioner's contradictory pleadings, rendered it evident that the petitioner had not approached the High Court with clean hands, and, therefore, was not entitled to invoke the equitable jurisdiction of the High Court

Contractual disputes, laden with factual controversies, did not fall within the purview of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution

In the absence of any demonstrable violation of fundamental rights or statutory obligations, High Court could not be called upon to adjudicate such dispute

Present petition was misconceived and same was devoid of any merit, as such, same was dismissed.

Professor retired from National Institute of Cardio-Vascular Diseases (NICVD) sought directions to the Respondents/NICVD to pay him all outstanding professional fees and arrears of satellite allowance, consistent with the relevant payment structure

Held: It appeared from the minutes of the Governing Body of NICVD for establishing the Satellite Centers of NICVD in Sindh with the understanding that NICVD would engage a senior doctor as Director Satellite centre and for operation management a Head of Project would also be engaged from NICVD

Respondents disputed the official position of the petitioner as Head of the Project, as such the High Court could not give declaration to the effect whether the petitioner was entitled for the satellite allowance

So far as PhD allowance was concerned, petitioner was getting the said allowance but not on enhanced rate in terms of relevant/ asserted Notification (dated 08.02.2018 ) for which the respondents disputed the entitlement of the petitioner which was permissible to all PhD faculty members of the public sector university, whereas the NICVD had not been declared as a teaching hospital

Therefore, the High Court could not direct the respondents to implement the Notification, if not earlier implemented in NICVD employees case

Since the petitioner had already retired in 2020 and rotation of posting of the office staff of Satellite Centre was undertaken by the petitioner, it did not mean that he was Head of Project to claim benefit of the minutes of the meeting

All said disputed facts needed thorough examination which was to be done by the court of plenary jurisdiction and not under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Besides, as per statement of the respondents, there was final settlement with regard to service benefits of the petitioner, as such the present case could not be stretched further

Constitutional petition, filed by former professor, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Record reveals that the Adjudicating Authority of Customs has not disputed the Goods Declaration (GD) but rejected the plea of the claimant that GD did not match with the seized truck

Said findings of the Seizing Authority were based on assumption as no reference of any other admissible documents in said respect was given

Tribunal in (relevant two paragraphs of) impugned judgment has not only explained about the excess item but also explained the reason regarding the different number of the truck by going through the documentary evidence which judgment reflects that throughout the proceedings only factual questions with regard to excess of their items and difference of truck number was involved which have been properly decided by the Tribunal

Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, envisages that it is the Tribunal which is the forum meant for determining factual aspects

High Court under S. 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, is confined to consider the question of law

Applicant instead of making its case on law point emphasized the whole case on factual controversy without reference to any separate / admitted documents and could not point out any jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment, warranting any interference by the High Court

Special Customs Reference filed by the Collectorate was dismissed.

Any error in the assessment, which is disputed by the adversarial parties, obviously requires a thorough probe and inquiry which exercise cannot be the done by the High Court while adjudicating a Reference because it exclusively falls either in the domain of Additional Collector, Customs, during adjudication or by the Appellate Tribunal, which is the final and ultimate authority to determine error in assessment of duty or any disparity in the rate of freight or any other factual controversy.

Petitioner / contractor was aggrieved of change of nomenclature of project in question from "widening of road" to "scheme for construction of BT road and side drain"

Validity

Electronic bid of widening / improvement / rehabilitation of road in question was initially invited, bid opening date was fixed but the same was cancelled due to unavoidable circumstances

Thereafter bid was again cancelled after a few months due to the reason that it was not published on time

Third time after fixing a specific date, the bid was again cancelled / annulled due to unavoidable circumstances

Petitioner alleged that change of nomenclature was made without sufficient legal justification or adherence to rules

Authorities claimed that inhabitants' claim / objection over land led to halt in implementation of the scheme

High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction as factual controversy was involved in the matter

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Argument of the Applicant / Department was that the respondent had failed to produce any goods declaration and /or import documents to prove that the vehicle-in-question was not a smuggled one

Plea of the respondent was that earlier the trawler carrying 15 vehicles, including vehicle-in-question, was completely burnt in an accident, which fact, having been endorsed by concerned Engineering Company, was thoroughly discussed by the Tribunal

Validity

Findings of the Tribunal revealed that it (Tribunal), after a detailed factual ascertainment and inquiry, had come to a definite conclusion that the vehicle-in-question was owned by the respondent as a subsequent purchaser and the reasons for re-punching of same chassis number as alleged was due to an accident, which was duly reported through an FIR

Record also reflected that Applicant through its representative confirmed the contents of the FIR and the fact that the same vehicle was involved in such accident; hence, mere re-punching of the same / identical chassis number would not ipso facto make it a smuggled Vehicle

It was further available on the record that the vehicle-in-question was initially sold by the concerned Engineering Company which at the relevant time was the manufacturer and seller of Mazda Trucks, and when approached for re-verification, it responded in favor of the Respondents, claim vide its letter - Said facts on record had not been controverted before the High Court in any manner

Thus, matter was entirely dependent upon factual aspect which had been dealt with properly by the Tribunal; hence no question of law arose out of the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal

Special Customs Reference Application filed by the Department, being misconceived was dismissed, in circumstance.

The appellant filed a defamation suit against the respondents for allegedly issuing a defamatory letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) which he claimed damaged his reputation

Trial court rejected the plaint under O.VII R.11 CPC on the ground that the impugned letter was issued in the respondents' official capacity and was protected under "absolute privilege" as per S.6 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 (the Ordinance, 2002) and S.483 of the Companies Act, 2017 (the Act 2017)

The appellant challenged this rejection in the present appeal contending that such determinations required evidence and could not be resolved at the preliminary stage

Two important points for consideration by the High Court were as to "i. Whether the defamatory letter qualified as a "judicial proceeding" within the meaning of S.483 of the Act, 2017? and; ii. Whether the defamatory letter was written by the respondents in their personal or official capacity?"

Held: Perusal of S.483 of the Act, 2017 revealed that whilst powers of the civil court had been vested in the Commission for the purposes outlined in subsection (1) of S.483 in respect of any "proceedings" or "enquiry", the same attained the status of a "judicial proceeding" only within the meaning and for the purposes of Ss.193 and 228 of the P.P.C.

The defamatory letter visibly did not fall in the said category and it could not be classified as part of a "judicial proceeding"

Therefore, reliance of the Trial court on the above noted provision, at least for the purposes of rejection of plaint, was unfounded and incorrect

With regards to the second question for determination by the High Court, same required evidence to be recorded

The appellant should have been given an opportunity to examine the respondents and put forward necessary questions to them to determine the capacity in which the defamatory letter was written

The conclusion by the Trial Court in reference to the said letter being written by the respondents in their "official positions" could not have been made prior to recording of evidence

Trial Court went over and above the permissible scope of O.VII R.11 C.P.C.

Perusal of the impugned order reflected that the Trial court had not distinguished between rejection of the plaint and dismissal of the suit

Matter was remanded back to the Trial Court with a direction to conclude the proceedings within six months

Order of rejection of plaint was set aside and present appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner / company assailed show cause notice imposing stamp duty on the plea that the documents were Tenancy agreements and not Lease deeds

Validity

Mere issuance of a notice did not give rise to a cause of action to challenge the same by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court to seek declaration that documents in question were mere Tenancy Agreements and not Lease Deeds

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to give such declaration as it required a factual determination including leading of evidence

Notice assailed was not by itself an adverse order and could be responded by petitioner / company through reply

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Trial Court dismissed second application of the defendant filed under R. 11 of O. VII, C.P.C., with costs, which judgment was maintained by the District Court

Validity

Trial Court is primarily responsible for assessing facts and High Court possesses the authority under Art. 199 of the Constitution to intervene in a limited scope, which encompasses rectifying jurisdictional errors and constitutional infringements

However, such circumstances were not found to be applicable in the present case

Impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below warrant no intervention

Constitutional petition, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Grievance of the petitioner was that despite clearing the written and physical assessments, he was declared unsuccessful in the interview on account of political favouritism and nepotism by selecting such candidates, who even had not participated in the recruitment process

Validity

Petitioner had alleged favoritism and nepotism; however, these allegations remained unsubstantiated, which rested solely on conjecture and oral averments, unsupported by documentary evidence

High Court could not place reliance upon such vague allegations to unravel or undo an otherwise lawful recruitment process

If such unverified claims were permitted to prevail, it would open floodgates for indiscriminate litigation and cast aspersions upon the sanctity of institutional recruitment

Assessment/re-evaluation lies within the exclusive domain of the Interview or Recruitment Committee to assess and evaluate candidates during the interview process and to allocate scores according to their own judgment and assessment

High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under the constitutional writ, cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Recruitment Committee

Authority and wisdom vested in the Committee cannot be interfered with or questioned, unless there is manifest malice or gross illegality on the face of the record warranting judicial intervention

Judicial scrutiny does not extend to re-evaluation of interview scores or assessment unless it is demonstrably arbitrary or discriminatory

Petitioner admitted that he could not qualify in the interview and his allegations required factual inquiry, which was beyond the scope of constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

In absence of any compelling evidence pointing to mala fide or gross illegality, High Court cannot grant the relief sought

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner / Ministry of Interior Employees Cooperative Housing Society (MIECHS) sought direction to respondent / Capital Development Authority (CDA) to pay compensation and complete process of acquisition initiated in year, 2009

Plea raised by respondent / CDA was that no period was specified for payment of compensation

Validity

Mere fact that S. 29 of Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 does not specify period within which payment of compensation is to be made to landowners for their acquired land does not mean that CDA has a free hand to make the payment as and when it takes its fancy

Deputy Commissioner has to proceed to pay the compensation awarded to interested party, as under regulation 15(1) of Land Acquisition Regulation, 1961, it has been provided that "as soon as possible after the award"

Respondent / CDA claimed to have acquired a total of 641 Kanals and 13 marlas of land of petitioner / MIECHS whereas, according to petitioner / MIECHS, 682 Kanals and 15 marlas was acquired

Such dispute could not be resolved in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court as it required recording of evidence

High Court declined to rely upon list of different chunks of land attached by petitioner / MIECHS allegedly owned by MIECHS in different Khasra numbers in Revenue Estate concerned, as the same was not an official document

High Court set-aside the compensation payable to petitioner / MIECHS on the ground that despite lapse of fifteen years from the date of pronouncement of award (i.e. 15-01-2009), no compensation was paid

High Court allowed respondent / CDA to initiate fresh process for determination of present market value of petitioner's / MIECHS's land in accordance with the law

Constitutional petition allowed accordingly.

Petitioner's (husband's) assertions about supposedly fake and fabricated receipts of dowry articles was a factual inquiry, which was undertaken by the Family Court and the Appellate Court and could not have been done by the High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, or the Supreme Court under its jurisdiction under Article 185 (3) of the Constitution

Therefore, the High Court, in the impugned judgment rightly declined to interfere in the findings of the two fora below

Petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Petitioners/share-holders invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court against order of the Member Board of Revenue reversing the orders passed by Revenue Officers on an application for partition of joint property

Held, that the petitioners had not arrayed the Provincial Government, Revenue Officials and most particularly, the Member of the Board of Revenue whose order had been called into question

Impugned order was a remand order which was not open to judicial review under constitutional jurisdiction

Moreover, it was abundantly clear that factual controversy was involved which, too, was not amenable to judicial review under constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Petition being bereft of merits was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners / companies assailed order of National Tariff Commission deciding to continue definitive Anti-Dumping Duties for another period of five years

Validity

Provision of S. 70 of Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015, is an exhaustive provision, which does not only provide substantive right of appeal and time limitation for preferring and decision of the same but it also lays down procedural requirements for carrying out whole appellate procedure

Comprehensive scheme of exercising Appellate Jurisdiction by Appellate Tribunal constituted under S.64 of Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015, has been provided in law against appeal preferred by an interested party either against initiation of investigation, preliminary determination or final determination and also provides limitation

It also provides procedure for hearing the same including chalking out requirements for a decision of Tribunal

Substantive right of appeal against decision of Appellate Tribunal to High Court has been laid down in S.70(13) of Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015

This whole scheme of remedial procedure is clearly suggestive of the fact that a Determination even though a Final Determination under S. 39 of Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015, is not absolute and is open for scrutiny before Appellate Tribunal if any interested party, dissatisfied with the same, prefers an appeal before it

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as adequate alternate remedy of appeal was available

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Reference against a judgment or order of Appellate Tribunal can only be filed on a question of law.

Petitioner / candidate was aggrieved of polling results declared by Election Commission, wherein respondent was declared as returned candidate

Validity

Contesting parties had taken divergent stands in respect of associating petitioner, a candidate, in consolidation process

Whether Form 47 was manipulated or not whether consolidation of results in Form 47 was made in absence of petitioner or not; and whether or not receiving / issuing notice to petitioner was prior to the preparation of Form 47, were all disputed questions of facts and the same could not be resolved in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Petitioner could file representation under Ss. 8, 9, 15 & 95 of Elections Act, 2017, read with Art.218 (3) of the Constitution before Election Commission of Pakistan

Consolidation of result whether made in presence or absence of petitioner would be resolved by Election Commission of Pakistan while deciding the matter, if agitated before it

Prompt decision by Election Commission of Pakistan would be in the spirit of Arts. 218(3) & 224 of the Constitution by strictly complying the provisions of Elections Act, 2017

High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were aggrieved of non-transfer of suit plot by Lahore Development Authority in favour of person to whom it was sold

Validity

Questions regarding title of a person in a property fell outside the ambit of Constitutional jurisdiction, hence, could not be decided in exercise of powers under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Evaluation of evidence necessary to decide such questions could not be undertaken by Constitutional Court and invocation of such jurisdiction could only be made when there was no stigma or defect alleged on the title of litigant

Such defect could only be adjudicated by Courts of plenary jurisdiction

Existence of or even undetermined allegation of such facts precluded petitioners from seeking issuance of a writ

Contentions of petitioners themselves pointed towards an alleged blot on their title

When title itself was undetermined, High Court could not proceed on an assumption of existence of any vested right, sufficient to enable High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 199

Right of petitioners to use and dispose of their property, contingent upon existence of a valid title was a private law right, which once established would give rise to public law duty of Lahore Development Authority to not cause any hindrance in the exercise of such right

Petitioners tried to cross the bridge before reaching it and had sought issuance of a writ for enforcement of a public law right without first establishing their private law right from a Court of ordinary jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Applicant (importer) filed Reference Application as Order-in-Original was maintained by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue ('Tribunal')

Validity

Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue is final arbitrator of facts and factual controversies are not ordinarily amenable for adjudication before the High Court in reference jurisdiction

Reference application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plaint filed by petitioner/plaintiff was rejected by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court for want of cause of action when the case was fixed for recording of evidence

Validity

Once application was made under O. VII, R. 11 C.P.C., in a suit, it became responsibility of Court to independently determine all relevant legal inquiries, including whether the suit was barred by law or if the plaint disclosed a cause of action

Trial Court rejected plaint while considering a subsequent application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., contravening prevailing legal provisions

Omission of both the lower Courts regarding their failure to acknowledge that it would not be justifiable to reject the plaint when parties were at variance of factual issues, especially considering that the case had been scheduled for presentation of evidence

Once issues are framed and Court has entered upon recording of evidence, matter has to be taken its logical end instead of summary disposal

High Court set aside orders passed by two Courts below as both the Courts below committed material irregularity and illegality while rejecting plaint of petitioner/plaintiff under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C

High Court remanded the matter to Trial Court to conduct trialin accordance with law and decide the same on merits on the basis of evidence recorded during trial

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Respondents in their alleged that petitioner had worked in two different organizations at the same time, therefore, the post had been re-advertised

Contention of the petitioner was that he was a legitimate expectant for issuance of appointment letter, however, recruitment process had been cancelled only to the extent of the post for which the petitioner had applied, which was illegal and based on mala fide

Validity

Certain allegations levelled by the respondents, which had been objected to by the petitioner being false and misleading were disputed facts, which the High Courts in its constitutional jurisdiction was unable to adjudicate upon

Neither any offer letter had been issued to the petitioner, nor any further commitment had been made by the respondents, which could create any right in favour of the petitioner, which was notwithstanding passing of any test or interview as claimed by the petitioner

High Court while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution cannot assume the role of an appointment authority and must not issue any directions for appointment in given facts and circumstances

Unless a vested right is first established no enforcement thereof can be sought

Doctrine of legitimate expectation had not arisen in the present case as mere passing of a test and interview does not ipso facto create any such legitimate expectation

Once the process had been withdrawn and no appointment offer had been made, no right had accrued in favour of the petitioner to seek any direction under the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court

No vested right to appointment accrues unless a merit list is displayed and appointment letters are issued as the Government can always stop or abandon the process or initiate a fresh one if there are valid reasons or justification to support such action

Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is limited to the extent of ensuring that state functionaries do what they are required by law to do and refrain from doing what they are prohibited by law to do

Neither a vested right had accrued nor there was a question of any legitimate expectation, therefore, that principle of law was not applicable

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Department, after issuance of show cause notice, ordered that the software used in the machinery was an intangible asset, therefore, the expense incurred on the software was required to be deducted separately and in accordance with the procedure provided in S. 24 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Order-in-original was assailed before two appellate forums but to no avail

Validity

Controversy whether the software was integral part of the equipment or otherwise was a factual controversy, which had rightly been settled by the forums below

Reference applications were dismissed.

Incumbent upon the petitioner exhausting remedy under Art. 199 of the Constitution to establish that he has legal right over the subject property and that such right was so clear that it left no room of doubt or any controversy

Matter involving the disputed and unclear title over the subject property could not be entertained and allowed to be agitated in writ jurisdiction

Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 199 was intended primarily for providing an expeditious remedy in a case where the illegality of the impugned action of an executive or other authority was floating on the surface, which could be established without any elaborate enquiry into the questions involved in the matter

Petitioner had no clear or undisputed title over the subject land, which was Government land

Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed.

High Court cannot engage in factual controversies, as the matters pertaining to factual controversies can only be resolved after thorough inquiry and recording of evidence in a Civil Court.

Petitioner exported goods to foreign country against E-Forms and had given undertaking in E-Forms that he would repatriate full amount of sale through Banks within six (06) months from the date of shipment/export

Authorities filed twelve (12) complaints against petitioner with allegation that petitioner failed to repatriate full amount of sale proceed within prescribed period and by delaying the same, petitioner contravened provision of S.12(1)(2) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947

Validity

Proceedings in respect of complaints were pending before adjudication officer and no orders were passed against petitioner by then

Issues raised by petitioner pertained to factual controversy which could not be resolved in Constitutional jurisdiction

Petitioner had remedy of appellate forum

Petitioner could place all relevant documents in support of his contention before adjudicating officer who would consider the same in accordance with law for passing appropriate orders

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioners/share-holders invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court against carving of Tatima on the basis of report of commission

Held, that determination of possession of parties could only be made through spot inspection

Such controversy could not be determined by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court

When there are conflicting claims of factual nature pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction, then the factual controversy should be left to such Court for decision

No case for interference through constitutional petition was made out

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

After conclusion of recruiting process, the petitioner was held to secure 70 marks and his name was recorded at serial No. 4 of the merit list

Respondent was declared successful for the post as he had obtained higher marks than the petitioner

Two other individuals who had secured more marks than the petitioner were not arrayed as party to the petition

Said candidates were necessary party to the petition

Grievance of petitioner was that he was awarded lesser marks in the interview in order to accommodate other candidate; however, as per comments of the department available on file, respondent had 10 years' experience in the relevant field, therefore, he was awarded experience marks for the same

No law or any right of the petitioner was violated by the respondents

Allegation levelled by the petitioner was general and vague qua mala fide against the department, which was not sufficient for intervening in the selection process

Matter pertained to factual controversy which could not be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction

No illegality or irregularity was committed by the department by issuing the appointment order

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Dispute was with regard to invoices issued by suppliers who had either been declared blacklisted or were non-existent with "registration suspended" status

Show-Cause Notices for refund claims issued by authorities were rejected by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue

Validity

Findings of facts were given by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue that respondent-taxpayer produced relevant documents including invoices, proof of purchases and payments through banks and compliance of S.73 of Sales Tax Act,1990 was also made

Authorities failed to show that findings of facts made by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue were either perverse or contrary to record

High Court decided the question against authorities and in favour of respondent-taxpayer

Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

Federal Government is competent under S. 25 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, to eject any person in possession or occupation of any evacuee trust property, if it is required for an object considered to be for public purpose

Evacuee properties are mainly meant for charitable, religious and educational purposes

Question as to a whether a property is required for public purpose, exclusively falls within the domain of Federal Government

Lessee has no vested right to get it enforced through Constitutional petition

Terms and conditions of lease agreement cannot be implemented by resorting to Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Contention of petitioner that he was made victim of malice in fact by itself was question requiring factual determination

Constitutional jurisdiction could not be exercised for determining a question of fact

No fetters could be put to powers of executive to utilize such property for public welfare only on the whims and caprice of the lessee

Such exercise or ejectment of petitioner would not cause prejudice to the rights of respondent as the lease property was no more available

High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 199 (1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution declined to interfere in the matter as order cancelling lease was not without lawful authority

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was aggrieved of delimitation of constituencies in question by Election Commission for upcoming general elections

Validity

Delimitation of constituencies, under S.20 of Elections Act, 2017, had to be made with regard to distribution of population in geographically compact areas, physical features, existing boundaries of administrative units, facility of communication and public convenience and other cognate factors to ensure homogeneity in creation of constituencies

Constituencies in question were originally proposed to be delimited through Form-5, whereafter when final list of delimitation / Form 7 was issued the proposed plan was disrupted

Final list was not in accordance with the principles of delimitation of constituencies provided in S. 20 of Elections Act, 2017

High Court set aside final delimitation of constituencies and remanded the matter to Election Commission for decision afresh

Petitions were allowed, in circumstances.

Record revealed that the petitioner had got issued his family tree (from NADRA) after about four months of institution of present petition

Respondents (accused persons) had claimed that the petitioner had given a fake name to his son

Such controversy could not be resolved without proper inquiry/trial as well as examination of record and custodian thereof

Relief, which was dependent upon determination of controversial questions of facts, could not be granted under constitutional jurisdiction

Petitioner had not disclosed the specific place and names of persons who had allegedly wrongfully confined his son (alleged detenue)

Petitioner had given contradictory statements regarding his son's status (studies, health conditions etc.)

Petitioner had, prima facie, suppressed true facts and had made attempt to get favourable order and even using a non-existant person to be the 'abductee'

Constitutional petition was dismissed with costs, in circumstances.

Petitioners were employees of Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority, who were being proceeded departmentally on the allegations of issuing fake licenses to pilots

Validity

Discretionary jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution, could not be exercised in a vacuum and had to be grounded on valid basis showing violation of specific enforceable legal or Constitutional rights

Such discretion was to be exercised in a structured and calibrated manner with due regard to parameters put in place by the Constitution as well as by the superior courts

Necessary factors were lacking and High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction vested under Art.199 of the Constitution could neither enter into factual controversy nor decide disputed questions of fact

High Court declined to interfere in the matter, as the same pertained to disputed questions of fact

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were employees of Sindh Employees Social Security Institution, whose services were dispensed with on the accusation of lack of academic appointment without fulfilment of codal formalities

Validity

Appointment in the public office could only be made through competitive process on merit as provided under recruitment rules, without any discrimination, and in a transparent manner

All appointments in public institutions must be based on a process that was substantially and tangibly fair and within the parameters of its applicable rules, regulations, and bylaws, i.e. advertisement, written test, and interview by recruitment/selection committee

If candidate had applied based on such an admissible quota under law he could be accommodated subject to his qualification for the post under recruitment rules

High Court declined to entertain claims, and counter-claims of parties as those were disputed questions of facts and could not be adjudicated by High Court while exercising Constitutional Jurisdiction

High Court declined to adjudicate petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution and left the matter upon competent authority of respondent Institution

High Court pointed out that respondent-Sindh Employees Social Security Institute did not realize its own mistake in time by recruiting petitioners in year 1998 and onwards without advertisement, disclosing academic pre-requisites, and they continued to avail their services; and, after a considerable period, they perceived that their basic appointments were not under the Service Regulations of SESSI

High Court directed the Institution to scrutinize/examine eligibility of petitioners and those whose academic degrees, which they were holding at the time of initial appointment, were verified, would be retained as employees

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Held, that the contention of the petitioners, had specifically been repelled by the Corporation in the terms that they had got verified the degree which had been reported by the concerned Board/Universities to be genuine

Burden, in circumstances, was shifted to the petitioers to highlight/append documentary proofs but they had failed to do so

In presence of specific denial, the matter became disputed question of facts, which could not be adjudicated upon under costitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstance.

Questions of fact cannot be determined by the High Court while exercising powers under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974.

High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction cannot sit over and step in the policy/administrative decisions of the government functionaries qua the welfare projects particularly when the stance of the petitioner is objected by the other side on factual grounds

Proper recourse in this regard is to file the civil suit in order to establish a specific fact by providing oral as well as documentary evidence

Extraordinary relief is justified only in extraordinary circumstances in favour of an aggrieved person, if any infringement of law or for that matter violation of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights is involved.

Plea raised by petitioners was jurisdiction of Civil Courts was barred under paragraph 10 of Settlement of Disputes of Immovable Property (Chitral) Regulation (III of 1974)

Validity

Provision of Art. 247 of the Constitution was omitted from the Constitution vide Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2018, without providing any savings

As a result thereof all Regulations issued under Art. 247 of the Constitution by President or Governor with the previous assent of the President, stood repealed

If Parliament, while performing its constituent function at the time of enacting Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2018, intended to give continuity to erstwhile regime, the Parliament would have provided for a saving clause while repealing Art. 247 of the Constitution

By not doing so intention of Legislatures was that they wanted to extend regular legal regime as prevalent in rest of the country to newly merged Districts forming part of Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas and they wanted to do away with tribal status of all such areas and wanted to include them in main-stream

High Court employed instrumentality of reading down for the purpose of avoiding to strike down the statute in its entirety, so as the statute could remain functional in giving continuity to those laws which were not in conflict of Constitutional provisions or militate against separation and independence of judiciary

High Court read down provision of S.3 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Continuation of Laws in the Erstwhile Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Act, 2018 to the extent it would give continuity to Settlement of Disputes of Immovable Property (Chitral) Regulation III of 1974

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the matter as alternate remedy before Civil Court was available to petitioners

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were industrialists who sought exemption from income tax charged in their electricity bills on the basis of Notifications SRO No.1212(I)/2018 dated 5-10-2018 and SRO No.1213(I)/2018 dated 5-10-2018

Validity

Units of petitioners were established prior to issuance of Notifications SRO No.1212(I)/2018 dated 5-10-2018 and SRO No.1213 (I)/2018 dated 5-10-2018 or later required factual probe

Petitioners did not approach appropriate officers of Inland Revenue for deciding case of their exemptions

High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to intervene as essential fact whether the units were established prior to issuance of Notifications SRO No.1212(I)/2018 dated 5-10-2018 and SRO No.1213(I)/2018 dated 5-10-2018 or subsequent required recording of evidence

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners / plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaration and injunction on the ground that their predecessor-in-interest did not sell suit property

Trial court declined to reject the plaint but Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction rejected the plaint on the basis of documents produced by respondents / defendants with their pleadings

Validity

While considering application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., Court was to look into contents of plaint and documents appended and after considering the same should have applied its judicial mind to decide fate of application so submitted

Lower Appellate Court under no circumstances could travel beyond scope of relevant provision and prerequisites mentioned therein, as in such eventuality powers so exercise would yield injustice which had never been intent and purpose of law

High Court set aside order passed by Lower Appellate Court as matter before the Court, was purely of factual controversy and was not within the parameters laid down for rejection of plaint

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioners claimed to be owners of land in question and were aggrieved of restriction imposed by authorities from cutting trees

Validity

Land in question was shown as part and parcel of protected forest compartment and the same had been wrongly entered as private property in revenue record

Application of petitioners was rightly dismissed by authorities

Question involved was factual in nature and could not be determined without recording of evidence

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Question as to whether a particular act is mala fide requires factual inquiry which cannot be undertaken by the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction.

Right of appeal was provided to the petitioner under S.10 of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 read with R.10 of the Punjab Luxury House Tax Rules, 2014

Factual controversy involved in the matter could be resolved by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was disposed of with a direction to the department to entertain the objections of the petitioner and in the meanwhile, no coercive measures for recovery were to be taken against the petitioner.

Petitioners/taxpayers were aggrieved of show cause notices issued to them on the plea that proceedings under S.11(2) of Sales Tax Act, 1990

Validity

Allegations contained in show cause notices were based on information gathered from audited accounts and sales tax returns filed by petitioners

Allegations related to disposal of fixed assets by petitioners without payment of sales tax and claiming of inadmissible input tax against purchase made from inactive / de-registered suppliers, details whereof were mentioned in show-cause notice

Excess input tax claimed on insurance, failure to deposit sales tax on advances from customs, suppression of sales tax by way of export declaration, suppression of sales and violation of S.73(3) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, were also alleged in show-cause notice

Allegations contained in show-cause notice fell within the parameters of S.11(2) of Sales Tax Act, 1990

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as there was no jurisdictional error in show cause notices issued to petitioners and factual allegations contained therein required to be responded to by petitioners

Any adjudication by Officer of Inland Revenue, if adversely affecting rights of petitioners, could be challenged in the manner before forums provided under Sales Tax Act, 1990

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Customs Authorities seized bitumen of foreign origin from warehouse of respondent on the plea of smuggled / non-duty paid

Customs Appellate Tribunal allowed appeal filed by respondent and goods were ordered to be restored

Validity

Documents produced by respondent about local purchase and corresponding Sales Tax Returns which were official documents were relied upon by Customs Appellate Tribunal

Such documents shifted burden upon Customs Authorities to show that the same were not genuine

Documents were not got verified from relevant quarters by Customs Authorities to reach conclusion whether the same were genuine or not and whether the same related to the goods in question or not

Burden that shifted upon Customs Authorities on production of documents by respondent in terms of S.187 of Customs Act, 1969, to substantiate the goods was non-duty paid had not been properly discharged

Findings of fact about genuineness of documents and lawful possession of goods were not shown to be against record

High Court could not interfere in findings of fact about genuineness of receipts relied upon by Customs Appellate Tribunal as no question of law had arisen that required determination by High Court

High Court answered the question in negative as Customs Authorities could not establish that respondent had produced bogus record

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

High Court is not to resolve the disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction.

Petitioners challenged the extension of territorial limits of the Cantonment by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP)

Validity

Power of de-limitation of constituencies based on geographical compactness and equal distribution of population squarely falls within the exclusive domain of the ECP

Under Chapter-III of the Elections Act, 2017, the ECP has the mandate to delimit constituencies

As per the provisions contained in S. 17 read with S. 19 of the Elections Act, 2017, the ECP can also exercise the powers of delimitation of territorial constituencies by dividing each Province into as many separate territorial constituencies as the number of general seats allocated to that Province as specified in Art. 51 of the Constitution

Moreover, the principles of delimitation are given in S. 20 of the Elections Act, 2017

Petitioners had raised disputed questions of facts in the case and factual controversy could not be resolved by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Election Commission of Pakistan had not exceeded its powers whilst issuing the election schedule strictly in accordance with relevant provisions of the applicable law

Writ petition being not maintainable was dismissed.

Acceptance of objection petition by Executing Court during execution proceedings being an order of final nature without providing a fair opportunity of hearing violative to the fundamental right of fair trial and due process protected under Art. 10A of the Constitution.

High Court cannot disturb factual findings while exercising reference jurisdiction.

Question before High Court was whether goods in question i.e. High Styrene Rubber was similar or identical to Styrene-Butadiene Rubber (SBR) as notified in the Valuation Ruling

Such was purely a question of fact and could not be adjudicated upon by High Court in reference jurisdiction, whereas, the Appellate Tribunal had decided that factual aspect of the matter after a threadbare discussion and considering even the Laboratory Tests carried out by the department itself.