Factual inquiry

2022 PTD 1882 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.2(kka), 25 & 196ReferenceGoods DeclarationValuation, determination ofFactual inquiryForumDispute was with regard to valuation of goods imported by respondent companyValidity

Customs Appellate Tribunal was the last fact finding authority, which had opined that respondent company submitted all required commercial documents including commercial invoice, packing list and bill of lading to customs authorities

Documents presented and relied upon by respondent company were admissible in terms of S.2(kka) of Customs Act, 1969

Customs Appellate Tribunal had given factual finding that examination report furnished by Examination Staff of Customs Department did not object to quantity of the items imported

Difference between authorities and respondent company was only with regard to the fact that whether parts imported were genuine or non-genuine

Such aspect according to the Tribunal was satisfactorily explained by respondent company

Price of items, as determined by Directorate General Valuation, was in consonance with rates as declared by respondent company in various documents furnished by them and in Good Declaration as well pertaining to non-genuine parts

High Court declined to interfere in findings of Customs Appellate Tribunal, as while exercising advisory jurisdiction, points of facts determined by Customs Appellate Tribunal could not be interfered with

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

2022 PLC(CS) 833 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art.199Civil serviceConstitutional petitionFactual inquiryScope

Petitioner assailed issuance of impugned letter by authorities, whereby it deducted excessive withdrawal of pension amount

Contention of authorities was that excessive payment was made to the petitioner which was being deducted from his pensionary benefits

Validity

High Court, while keeping in view the contentions of parties, directed Nazir of the court to consult the provincial Accountant General, who was directed to depute an official to assist the official of the court to undertake the exercise of re-calculation of the pensionary benefits

Report submitted by the Nazir was objected to by the petitioner

High Court declined to make deliberation in numerical figures

Parties so aggrieved from the report could approach the court of plenary jurisdiction against calculation of the Nazir

Petition was disposed of in terms of the report of Nazir.

2020 CLC 1145 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.51Improvements made by bona fide holders under defective titlesFactual inquiry

Application of section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was not a simple question of law rather the factual foundation of the parameters of the said section required it to be investigated and determined so as to render a decision whether transferee could be allowed compensation for improvements or propriety interest in the land on payment of its value.

2019 PCrLJ 1260 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionFactual inquiryScope

Detailed examination of facts could not be made in a constitutional petition as it would have trappings of a final order.

2019 PCrLJ 1260 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 5Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance (XX of 1961), S. 8Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 468, 419, 420, 471, 409 & 406Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 22-AConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Quashing of FIRFactual inquiryApplication to Ex-officio Justice of PeaceMaintainabilityProvisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 not in derogation of any other lawScopePetitioner sought quashing of FIR registered against him on the order of Ex-officio Justice of Peace

Petitioner, being a government servant, purportedly used national identity card of the respondent and got him appointed to a post and received salary on his behalf without informing him

Petitioner contended that an inquiry before the Anti-Corruption Establishment was pending, therefore, application under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C. was not maintainable

Validity

FIR lodged by local police against the petitioner did not constitute the case of overlapping with the case of Anti-Corruption Establishment in view of S. 5(4) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and S. 8 of Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961

Application before Ex-officio Justice of Peace was not maintainable in circumstances

Inquiry of factual controversy by High Court would tantamount to exceeding jurisdiction conferred by Art. 199 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was dismissed, accordingly.

2016 YLRN 198 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionFactual inquiryScope

High Court could not conduct factual inquiry under Art.199 of the Constitution.

2014 PLD 670 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 62(1)(f), 63(1)(g), 66, 69 & 199Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3(1)Intra-court Appeal

Constitutional petition filed before the High Court seeking disqualification of Prime Minister for 'lying" in Parliament

Political question

Factual inquiry

Not justiciable by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction

Contentions were that a statement made by the Prime Minister on the floor of the National Assembly was contradicted by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) department of the Armed Forces; that as such the Prime Minister had made a false statement, and did not fulfil the qualifications for membership of Parliament as he was not "honest" and "ameen"; and that the Prime Minister had defamed the Armed Forces of Pakistan and was liable to be disqualified under Art. 63(1)(g) of the Constitution

Validity

Present issue raised a political question, which was not justiciable in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court

For addressing a political question adequate and sufficient mechanisms were available in the Constitution as well as in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in National Assembly, 2007

Allegation of "lying" against the Prime Minister had to be established before a competent forum, but since the same had not been done in the present case, therefore Art. 62(1)(f) of the Constitution was not attracted

Question whether or not certain statements were made, who made such statements and in what background and context necessitated a factual inquiry

Such factual inquiry could not ordinarily be undertaken by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction

Prime Minister could not be disqualified under Art.63(1)(g) of the Constitution for allegedly defaming the Armed Forces of Pakistan as there was no conviction against him by a court of competent jurisdiction

Articles 66 & 69 of the Constitution provided certain privileges and immunities to members and proceedings of the Parliament, which could not be inquired into by the courts

Although said privileges and immunities had certain exceptions, but it was not established that the case of Prime Minister fell within any of the exceptions

Constitutional petition seeking disqualification of Prime Minister had been rightly dismissed by the High Court

Intra-court appeal was dismissed accordingly