Provincial Government

Article 140-A of the Constitution does not require that while legislating about establishment of Local Government and devolution of certain executive function of Government to Local Government, the Province should be deprived of exercising its executive authority over Local Government in overseeing and supervising functions of Local Government in accordance with law

Devolution of political, administrative and financial responsibility to Local Government should be meaningful and effective

Clothing any authority other than Provincial Government outside the regime of Local Government would not only be excessive delegation but contrary to the mandate of Arts. 140-A & 137 of the Constitution.

Provincial Government had a right of appeal under subsection (2) of S.411-A, Cr.P.C. to file an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, against an order of acquittal of an accused passed by the Single Bench of the High Court in exercise of original criminal jurisdiction.

Provincial Government did not have discretion to bypass provisions of Rules of Business framed by it and following the same was mandatory and binding on Provincial Government

Failure to follow Rules of Business by Provincial Government would lead to an order lacking any legal validity

Framer of rules was as much bound by the contents thereof as anyone else was subject thereto

Constitutionally mandated rules such as the Rules of Business of Provincial Government were closely intertwined with concept of good governance and allowing departure therefrom would be detrimental to open and transparent forms of governance

To allow Provincial Executive to depart from the language of Rules of Business, in its discretion, would tantamount to legitimizing unconstitutional executive actions

Executive authority of the Province, as exercised by the Provincial Government, was subordinated to Constitutional scheme in relation to conferment of Constitutional powers and responsibility on the three organs of the State.

Question before High Court was whether formation of "Planning and Development Board" by Provincial Government, which was not a department/autonomous body/"attached department" under Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011; could undertake business and execute projects of Provincial Government

Held, that after promulgation of Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011 by Provincial Government upon mandate conferred upon it by Art. 139 of Constitution, such "Planning and Development Board" could not undertake projects which fell within the domain of "Planning and Development Department" of Provincial Government instead

Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011 did not designate any such Board, which was merely a board in name or an empty shell and same could not embark upon undertaking a number of projects and schemes for which it had no mandate

By undertaking projects, the impugned "Planning and Development Board" bypassed long-standing and established Provincial Government departments which were designated under the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011

High Court held that formation of "Planning and Development Board" by Provincial Government was not in conformity with Art. 139(3) of Constitution and the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011 framed thereunder, and same was dissolved accordingly, with direction to transfer business of said Board to Planning and Development Department of Provincial Government

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Petitioner assailed notification issued by Sindh Government extending tenure of respondent as Vice-Chancellor on the advice of Chief Minister

Validity

Decision to appoint a Vice-Chancellor and decision to extend his tenure for one term was to be taken by 'Government' under S.27(1) of Sindh Agriculture University Act, 1977

Notification in question stated that it was issued by Governor Sindh / Chancellor on the 'advice of the Government'

Summary pursuant to which notification in question was issued, showed that such advice had in fact been given to Governor / Chancellor by the Chief Minister

Word 'Government' in S.27(1) of Sindh Agriculture University Act, 1977, stood amended at the relevant time by Sindh Universities and Institutes Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014, and the same could only mean the 'Provincial Cabinet'

Decision to extend tenure of respondent as Vice-Chancellor for another term, and terms and conditions of such extension had to be taken by "Provincial Cabinet"

High Court set aside notification issued by Provincial Government extending tenure of respondent as Vice-Chancellor of Sindh Agriculture University

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioners were appointed as Chairmen District Zakat and Ushr Committees for a period of three years but after change of government, Provincial Government removed the petitioners and appointed respondents as the Chairmen

Plea raised by authorities was that petitioners had alternate remedy of filing review to Provincial Zakat Council against its decision

Validity

Only Provincial Zakat Council could arrive at the opinion that petitioners had been guilty of alleged misconduct etc. and it was after the resolution of Provincial Zakat Council, the petitioners could be removed from the office as Chairmen of District Zakat and Ushr Committees

Notification in question was issued by Provincial Government with the approval of Chairman, Provincial Zakat Council, unauthorisedly exercising powers of Provincial Zakat Council, which on the face of it was illegal, without jurisdiction and coram non judice, hence the same was of no legal effect

No decision of Provincial Zakat Council was on record and decision of its Chairman alone could not be termed to be a decision of Provincial Zakat Council, therefore, no review could be filed before Provincial Zakat Council in absence of its decision

Orders/notifications of recalling/withdrawing nomination of petitioners and nominating respondents as Chairman District Zakat and Ushr Committees were declared to be illegal and of no legal effect

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Finance Secretary though was the principal accounts officer of the Provincial Government as he was the custodian of all finances of the Province but he was not strictly responsible for withholding of taxes as he was not disbursing payments to various recipients under the provisions of S.50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Responsibility for such disbursement was of the Accountant General to whom such amounts were transferred through budget documents after due sanctions by the Provincial Legislature who in turn had authorized various subordinate Account Officers for disbursement of such payments to various recipients and to contractors/service providers

Principal ,,accounts officer figured nowhere in this scheme of things as he was not the paying authority responsible to withhold taxes.

Provincial Government -Chief Commissioner of Karachi -Not Provincial Government.