Rules of Business

2021 PLD 1 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 184(3) & 209(5)(b)Rules of Business, 1973, R. 14

Presidential reference against a judge of the Supreme Court ('the petitioner') pending before the Supreme Judicial Council in relation to properties bought by his spouse and children in a foreign country that were not declared in the petitioner's tax returns

Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court calling into question the constitutionality and legality of the reference against him

Assets Recovery Unit purportedly established vide a Cabinet notification coordinated the collection of evidence against the petitioner-judge

Question as to whether the ARU could have entertained and investigated the complaint against the petitioner-judge

Reasons for quashing the Presidential reference recorded.

2021 PLD 544 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 139 (3)Rules of BusinessStatus

Rules of Business are Constitutional rules and occupy a pedestal higher than ordinary statutory rules formulated under delegated exercise of power.

2010 PLD 404 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Rules of Business, (Federal) 1973, R.14(2)(3)Constitutional jurisdictionScopeContractual matterPromissory estoppelApplicabilityPrinciplesPetitioner entered into a Petroleum Concession Agreement with the respondent/Government of Pakistan

After discovery of gas by the petitioner, respondent executed a development and commercial lease in favour of the petitioner and nominated Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited as purchaser of gas from petitioner company

Dispute arose over fixation of well-head price resulting from different interpretations of the relevant article of the Petroleum Concession Agreement

Parties, by mutual consent, referred the issue to the Attorney General for Pakistan who supported the version of petitioner company

Petitioner contended that the controversy was resolved by the opinion of the Attorney-General which was binding on the Government/respondent which refused to fix the price of gas

Petitioner further contended that the reference having been proposed by respondent (Government) itself, opinion of the Attorney General was binding on the Government/respondent on account of promissory estoppel

Respondent contended that constitutional petition was not maintainable as numerous remedies were available to the petitioner viz. arbitration, suit for specific performance that petitioner was not an `aggrieved party'; writ of mandamus could not be issued in the absence of any lapse on the part of any public functionary and that opinion of the Attorney General was not binding on the Government as the same was not the opinion of an expert of petroleum industry

Validity

Rules 4(2)(3) of the Federal Rules of Business, 1973 attached primacy to the Attorney General's opinion which could only be overruled by the Prime Minister or the Cabinet

Record showed that the Prime Minister had not overruled the opinion of the Attorney General

Dispute of gas price was, admittedly, referred to the Attorney General by the Prime Minister with promise and understanding given to the petitioner company that the opinion/advice of the Attorney General would be binding on both the parties which agreed to seek the opinion of Attorney General as a mode or means to settle the dispute

Opinion of the Attorney General given in pursuance of mutual agreement, therefore, qualified to be regarded as an amicable settlement in the Petroleum Concession Agreement which did not prescribe any specific means to settle the disputes

Attorney General's opinion was binding on the Government on account of promissory estoppel

Whenever a person had acted on representation on promise made by the Government, he could not resile from such promise

Remedies of arbitration and suit for specific performance could be sought by the petitioner if the dispute pertained to the interpretation of the. relevant articles of the Petroleum Concession Agreement

Dispute/grievance, in fact, arose out of Federal Government's refusal to abide by the opinion of the Attorney General

Grievance though pertained to contractual matter, yet the same arose out of Federal Government's failure to follow the opinion of the Attorney General

Dispute did not involve determination of questions of fact of a contractual matter, therefore, constitutional jurisdiction could be exercised even in contractual matters where no controversial questions of fact required detailed inquiry were involved

Opinion of the Attorney-General was held to be binding on the government which was directed to fix the well-head price of gas in the light of Attorney General's opinion which amounted to settlement contemplated under the Petroleum Concession Agreement

Constitutional petition was allowed.

2010 PLD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 129, 130 & 199Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976), S.103Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXVIIRules of Business (Punjab), R.11Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityExecutive authority of the Province

Institution of constitutional petition under Art.199 of the Constitution against an order of Chief Election Commissioner or a petition under S.103, Representation of the People Act, 1976 wherein Chief Secretary of the Province was made respondent, was not in the nature of the exercise of "executive authority" as contemplated by Art.129 of the Constitution, rather the said petition only called in question an order, for which the principal executive officer of the Province and the Secretary of the concerned division could initiate and maintain a legal action, to which the procedure in O.XXVII, C.P.C. shall be applicable.

2003 PLD 726 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

R. 8Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityAlternate remedy, availability ofDispute between two Government DepartmentsResolving of such dispute by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdictionValidityRules of Business are framed under the Constitution and are binding upon two Departments

If any person having grievance that the law of land is not being followed seeks enforcement thereof, and the Government does not perform its functions provided under the Rules, the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be refused only on the ground that there is some mechanics provided for the resolution of the issues in Rules particularly when the Rules are not being followed by the concerned authority

Constitutional petition was maintainable in circumstances.

1997 PLC 579 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Rules of BusinessR. 17(1) & Sched. IIConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 139 & 199Constitutional petitionCompetency to file

Constitutional petition was filed by Authority by engaging private counsel paying him out of his own pocket against registration of Trade Union without permission of Law Department to engage private counsel

Rules of Business of Punjab Government framed under Art. 139 of the Constitution provide that proceedings in Courts of law could be instituted .and defended on behalf of Government or Government Officers with permission of Law Department, therefore, engagement of private counsel by public servant without permission of Law Department was not legal and private counsel so engaged could not plead on behalf of Government and public servants unless litigation was personal to public servants involved

Constitutional petition filed by Authority through private counsel was not competent in circumstances.

1995 PLC(CS) 391 FEDERAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

R. 7Rules of Business, R. 5(14)Promotion

Promotion of civil servant in BPS-21 was approved by Prime Minister on recommendatory note .of Information Minister, but as case of civil servant was not processed through normal channel of Central Selection Board as required under Rules, no notification regarding such promotion was issued, whereas of co-civil servant who was duly recommended by Central Selection Board was approved by Competent Authority

Establishment Division which was within jurisdiction to point out contravention of law, rule or policy, referred case of civil servant to Ministry of Information to review his case as his case was not processed through normal channel of Central Selection Board and it was a gross violation of rules

Civil servant had challenged such reference contending that his promotion having been made in special circumstances by Prime Minister, order of his promotion should have been implemented without any objection

According to procedure for appointment and promotion of civil servant as prescribed under R. 7 of Rules, it was requirement of law that promotion of civil servant in BPS-19 to BPS-21 should be processed and routed through Central Selection Board and any promotion made otherwise could not be deemed to be regular promotion in the eyes of law

Promotion of civil servant in BPS-21 having been made in violation of relevant rules, his case was rightly referred t6 the Competent Authority by Establishment Division

1991 SCMR 402 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 5Rules of Business, Sched. IV, Item No.7Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)Civil servant's appointment by Governor on regular basisGovernor had discretionary powers of appointing officers of his own House StaffNotification of civil servant's appointment was, however, not issued by the GovernmentProvincial Government terminated civil servantService Tribunal setting aside termination order directed Provincial Government to implement Governor's order

Governor's discretion to appoint civil servant as officer of his House Staff under item 7, Sched. IV, Rules of Business had not been disputed

Governor's order was -a formal order couched in formal language

Provincial Government could not defeat said order by refraining from issuing necessary notification to honour the same

Supreme Court could not act in aid of injustice

Provincial Government was directed to honour Governor's order by issuing necessary notification as directed by Service Tribunal

Leave refused in circumstances.

1966 PLD 66 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 9 read with Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42-Government, servant-Decision of competent authority on promotion or seniority not in accordance with prescribed Rules-Aggrieved Government servant can seek assistance of civil Court-Civil Court has jurisdiction to go into matter and grant relief of declaration claimed by such Government servant-Kashmir Service Rules, rr. 24 & 25-Rules of Business (Azad J. & K. Government)-Azad Kashmir Government Act, 1964.