Public office

Petitioners/insurance companies were aggrieved of notices for audit of accounts issued by Chief Inspector of Stamps, Board of Revenue Punjab

Dispute was with regard to deposit of stamp duty on instruments of insurance executed by petitioners/insurance companies

Held: If public functions under Art. 138 of the Constitution belong to Provincial Government then such functions can only be delegated to public officers who are departmental officials

Provisions of Stamp Act, 1899 concern themselves with collection and impounding of duties of stamp which, in essence, are public functions meant to be performed by public officers

Private bodies and persons included in definition of public office in Stamp Act, 1899 may carry out functions which can be described as public but as commercial organizations they cannot be said to possess powers solely in order that they may use them for the public good

Private bodies do not have the same duty that a public body, which is not a commercial undertaking, has

Private body is entitled to look to the interest of its shareholders

This also means that private bodies and persons may become subject to judicial review since their source of power is a statute

Offices to which a reference has been made in Appendix II of Stamp Act, 1899 do not include the bodies in dispute and not at all the offices of petitioners/insurance companies

Petitioners/insurance companies are not comprised in the list of Courts and offices and other accounts which are subject to stamp audit by a stamp auditor under West Pakistan Stamp Inspection and Audit Rules, 1949

Notices issued to petitioners/insurance companies were ultra vires as West Pakistan Stamp Inspection and Audit Rules, 1949 did not empower stamp auditor to inspect books and records of petitioners/ insurance companies for audit

Notices for audit were without lawful authority and Chief Inspector of Stamps was denuded of powers to serve such notices on petitioners/insurance companies to compel them to undertake stamp audit by stamp auditor nominated by Collector

High Court declared that definition of public office contained in S. 2(22A) of Stamp Act, 1899, to the extent of bodies in dispute was unconstitutional and without lawful authority and were struck out from the definition

High Court gave directions to modify definition of public officer in S. 2(22B) of Stamp Act, 1899

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioners/insurance companies were aggrieved of notices for audit of accounts issued by Chief Inspector of Stamps, Board of Revenue Punjab

Dispute was with regard to deposit of stamp duty on instruments of insurance executed by petitioners/insurance companies

Held: If public functions under Art. 138 of the Constitution belong to Provincial Government then such functions can only be delegated to public officers who are departmental officials

Provisions of Stamp Act, 1899 concern themselves with collection and impounding of duties of stamp which, in essence, are public functions meant to be performed by public officers

Private bodies and persons included in definition of public office in Stamp Act, 1899 may carry out functions which can be described as public but as commercial organizations they cannot be said to possess powers solely in order that they may use them for the public good

Private bodies do not have the same duty that a public body, which is not a commercial undertaking, has

Private body is entitled to look to the interest of its shareholders

This also means that private bodies and persons may become subject to judicial review since their source of power is a statute

Offices to which a reference has been made in Appendix II of Stamp Act, 1899 do not include the bodies in dispute and not at all the offices of petitioners/insurance companies

Petitioners/insurance companies are not comprised in the list of Courts and offices and other accounts which are subject to stamp audit by a stamp auditor under West Pakistan Stamp Inspection and Audit Rules, 1949

Notices issued to petitioners/insurance companies were ultra vires as West Pakistan Stamp Inspection and Audit Rules, 1949 did not empower stamp auditor to inspect books and records of petitioners/ insurance companies for audit

Notices for audit were without lawful authority and Chief Inspector of Stamps was denuded of powers to serve such notices on petitioners/insurance companies to compel them to undertake stamp audit by stamp auditor nominated by Collector

High Court declared that definition of public office contained in S. 2(22A) of Stamp Act, 1899, to the extent of bodies in dispute was unconstitutional and without lawful authority and were struck out from the definition

High Court gave directions to modify definition of public officer in S. 2(22B) of Stamp Act, 1899

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner company was aggrieved of impounding of document by Local Commission on behalf of Sub-Registrar for short levy of stamp duty

Validity

Public office was an office maintained out of national exchequer and public officer was paid from national exchequer

Status of Local Commission was that he had not been paid out of the national exchequer rather he received fee determined by Sub-Registrar, in consultation with the party concerned

Local Commission could not be considered as in-charge of a public office for the purpose of Stamp Act, 1899

Local Commission had no authority to impound any document handed over to him for completion

Local Commission was to act on behalf of a Sub-Registrar but in case of any omission or commission, instead of taking action by himself, Local Commission was bound to report the matter to Sub-Registrar

Status of Local Commission was that of a representative of Sub-Registrar

Petitioner company was not liable to pay stamp duty in lieu of the amount to be paid by it to the lessor, in lieu of service charges

After deposit of Rs. 50,44,378/- by petitioner company, Sub-Registrar had no authority to impound lease deed

High Court set aside orders passed by Sub-Registrar impounding the lease deed and that of Registrar rejecting representation of petitioner company

High Court directed Sub-Registrar to register Lease Deed of petitioner company and return the original

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Defination.

Defination.

Term of office refers to the period, either fixed by the Constitution or a statute, within which a public official may hold office

Tenure of office, on the other hand, is the period within which a public official actually held office within a prescribed term

In other words, term of office is fixed, while tenure of office is variable.

No one was above law and all the (public) offices, from the bottom to the top, were bound to perform their functions in accordance with law.

Main ingredients.

Offices created under the Constitution or specific statutes were deemed to be "public offices".

Member of National Assembly did hold a 'public office'.

Meaning.

Daughter of Prime Minister was appointed as Chairperson, Prime Minister's Youth Programme, however it was not shown whether there was a transparent process for her selection and appointment and that whether she possessed the requisite experience to head and manage a public fund of Rs.9 billion

Chairperson had tendered her resignation before present order, thus in wake of such resignation present matter stood concluded

High Court, however observed that considering that the Chairperson was to "manage, finalize and supervise the implementation of the Program" which comprised tax payer's money to the tune of Rs.9 billion, any future appointment to the said post must be transparent and through proper open selection process after giving due weightage to relevant experience and qualifications of the person concerned

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

All public offices were in the nature of a trust which included those of the Judiciary, Executive and Legislature.

Good character qualities were a fundamental norm for any holder of public office.

Appointments to public offices were to be made strictly in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, without any discrimination and in a transparent manner

All appointments to public institutions must be based on a process that was palpably and tangibly fair and within the parameters of its applicable rules, regulations and bye-laws.

Appointments to public offices were to be made strictly in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, without any discrimination and in a transparent manner

All appointments to public institutions must be based on a process that was palpably and tangibly fair and within the parameters of its applicable rules, regulations and bye-laws.

Role of the public official in a democracy, like the role of the State itself, was to serve the interest of the public and its members.

Such appointment was devoid of legality unless provided for by law.

Such official had to be provided an opportunity of hearing and defence.

Such termination was illegal, repugnant and ultra vires of the Constitution.

Such official had to be provided an opportunity of hearing and defence.

Such termination was illegal, repugnant and ultra vires of the Constitution.

Such appointment was devoid of legality unless provided for by law.

Public officers are under a legal obligation that if rights of citizens are to be interfered with, it be done on the basis of some legally admissible evidence duly collected

Rights of citizens cannot be allowed to be jeopardized on the basis of assumptions, surmises and conjectures.

Government offices being public trust should be regulated in a manner to promote sense of public service with a view to make a welfare State

Principles stated.

Government offices being public trust should be regulated in a manner to promote sense of public service with a view to make a welfare State

Principles stated.

Public office cannot be given on land grants.