Implementation

High Court issued guidelines to Provincial Government in order to streamline Public Sector Development Program of Balochistan and to make it in accordance with guidelines of Planning Commission of Pakistan as well as guidelines given by Supreme Court in case of Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, reported as 2014 SCMR 835

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner was pressured to grant a large scale rise in pension and to pay arrears to a considerable number of ex-employees which would necessarily mean a huge financial burden on petitioner

Without resting on any specific provision of law, which obliged petitioner to do so, State Bank of Pakistan had passed an order merely on the assumption that supreme executive authority of the country (The President of Pakistan) had directed to do so

Such was complete abdication of the powers by the official who was oblivious of statutory regime under which State Bank of Pakistan acted as a regulator and must act under the mandate of law to issue such directions

Any orders by the President of Pakistan in such matters was without lawful authority and could be accepted or implemented without demur by petitioner on the orders of State Bank of Pakistan

Source from which the issue emanated was a representation before the President which was in fact dismissed

Representation was filed by another Bank and petitioner was not party in those proceedings

Decision in that representation could not be made basis for passing general orders on the part of the President of Pakistan to Finance Division, who without dilating upon merits of directions proceeded to act as a post office to issue direction to State Bank of Pakistan

State Bank of Pakistan, in turn, too acted irrationally and without regard to its own statutory powers

High Court set aside order passed by State Bank of Pakistan as the same was ultra vires and of no legal effect

Petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner company was aggrieved of demand of transfer fee raised by authorities with regard to properties received as a result of Scheme of Arrangement from "Transferor Company"

Validity

Form 21 of Companies (Court) Rules, 1997 provided that all liabilities and duties of transferor company were to be transferred without further act or deed to transferee company

Such was pursuant to S. 287(2) of Companies Ordinance, 1984 transferred to and became liabilities and duties of transferee company

Such was not a conveyance or sale deed under Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which required registration and stamping under Registration Act, 1908 and Stamp Act, 1899, before Sub-Registrar

Scheme of Arrangement was not required to be registered under enactments of Registration Act, 1908 and Stamp Act, 1899, before Sub-Registrar

Such was approved by a Court of law as an instrument confirming scheme and forwarded to any authority concern in the format as defined in Form "A"

Transfer under Scheme of Arrangement was not in pursuance of Land Grant Policy, therefore, charges as were claimed for transfer of plot were not applicable on such count also

High Court directed the Authority that claim of transfer fee from merged entity in respect of plot was unjustified and unlawful

Application was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner was aggrieved of authorities by not allowing development of Housing Society for which "No Objection Certificate" had already been issued

No response to petitioner from the side of authorities

Authorities assured the High Court that if petitioner would apply afresh to them for grant of "No Objection Certificate" and that on receiving any response, future line of action would be determined and the matter would be decided in the light of law settled by superior Courts

Effect

High Court directed the petitioner to approach the authorities

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioners sought implementing decision of Jirga whereby respondent was declared as 'Kushinda' and was not allowed to enter his native village

Validity

Respondent had fundamental right to remain in, enter and move freely throughout Pakistan including his native village

Customs like declaring somebody as 'Kushinda' or expelling him from any of the territories was always discouraged by superior Courts of the land

Such practice or custom even if existed in the past could not be allowed to operate in future in any manner, particularly when it operated to abridge any of the fundamental rights of citizens

Petitioners were seeking to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court for ordering relevant authorities to implement a decision of Jirga which would have the effect of depriving respondent from exercise of his fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 15 of the Constitution

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Calculation of pension made by petitioner was factually incorrect on the ground that residual pension amount of petitioner as on 20-5-1999 was Rs.6,612.5 which was retained portion for restoration of commuted amount of pension and that amount was to be doubled after attaining the age of 72 years

As per Finance Division's O.M. No.F.4(1)-R6/99 dated 23-7-1999, O.M. No.F.16(1)-Reg. 6/2010-1071 dated 18-10-2019, O.M. No.F.13(13)-Reg. 6/2011 dated 21-1-2013 and O.M. No.F.13(13)-Reg. 6/2011 dated 11-3-2013, regarding restoration of pension, petitioner's entitlement for Rs.62,330/- at the double rate of current rate as claimed by him was unfounded and not in accordance with order of Supreme Court

High Court was satisfied with explanation offered by authorities that compliance of judgment of Supreme Court had been made in letter and spirit

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Calculation made by Provincial Government was not correct for the reason that Supreme Court directed to determine pension from the date of restoration of their commuted pension at the rate at which they were drawing 50% remaining pension which meant that petitioner at the time of his retirement commuted his 50% pension and that portion of pension was to be increased after a period of 15 years (commuted period)

Increases made on commuted pension had already been drawn by petitioner, therefore, his claim that at the time of restoration of his commuted portion, he was drawing Rs.28211.03 and increases to be made in that amount was misconceived

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as calculation prepared by authorities as well as Accountant General Sindh was in accord with judgment passed by Supreme Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) determined consumer end tariff but same was not implemented by the government

Validity

NEPRA had determined consumer end tariff but same was not gazetted officially

Government had lingered on the matter deliberately to deprive the consumers from the benefit granted under the law

Government could not be absolved from its mandatory duty and obligation to give treatment of orders passed by the NEPRA

Government was directed by High Court to decide the grievance of consumers within specified period

Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances.

Service Tribunal was a civil court for the purpose of deciding any appeal regarding terms and conditions of a civil servant

Service Tribunal had all powers of civil court including those required to implement its orders as provided under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908

In case of disobedience of orders of Service Tribunal, the same could be enforced under applicable provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Underlying object of incorporation of Art.212 in the Constitution and establishment of Service Tribunal by legislation was to provide efficacious, expeditious and inexpensive remedy to civil servants for redressal of their grievances arising out of violation of terms and conditions of their service

Establishment of Service Tribunal aimed at prevention of intrusions into or inroad on terms and conditions of civil servants by departmental authorities

Unlike Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution confined to question of law without venturing upon resolution of factual controversies, it was within the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal and it was its obligation to decide all questions of law and fact sought to be raised by petitioner

High Court declined to issue direction for implementation of judgment/orders passed by Service Tribunal purportedly in favour of petitioner

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Government is not under obligation to straightaway implement judgment of Service Tribunal but it must act promptly and invoke appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court, if so advised

If operation of judgment of Service Tribunal is not suspended by Supreme Court, mere grant of leave to appeal cannot defeat implementation process of judgment/order passed by Service Tribunal.

Supreme Court observed that police stations refused to register FIRs even if the information provided by a complainant related to the commission of a cognizable offence

Number of persons suffered and were pushed into litigation because of failure of the police to register the FIR

Directions of Justice of Peace to take action against defaulting Station House Officers (SHOs) were rarely implemented

People who registered false or vexatious complaints/ cases were rarely prosecuted

Inefficiencies, maladministration and abuse of power by the police with regard to registration of FIR highlighted.

Executive agencies or courts were duty bound to give effect to the rule of law without fear or favour, within their respective spheres of authority.