Government

In every democratic State, the Government was the trustee that could not act or exercise powers against the interest of its beneficiaries (people).

Concept.

Decision by-Cannot be varied or modified by interpretation contrary to express and explicit language of such decision by officer in one of Government departments.

Locus poenitentiae 'power of receding till decisive step taken)Always available to Government and other executive authorities if no vested right or interest affected thereby.

Litigation against employees-Duties and responsibilities of Government.-[Civil services].

Government Plaintiff a Co-operative Society having deposited money with defendant Government for specific purpose-Government not admitting even patent f6ct that amount was due and contesting suit on ground of limitation-Attitude adopted by Government, held, inconsistent with its public responsibilities.

Government -Executive powers or duties-Law, source of all power and duty-No inherent power in Executive except what has been vested in it by law-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Arts. 2 & 31.

Government-Mandamus can issue to Government-Government servant-Salary-Payment may be directed by mandamus Salary not a "bounty"-Analogy from English Constitutional Law inapt-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170-[Pakistan v. Muhammad A. Hayat P L D 1962 S C 28 rel.; State of Pakistan v. Mehrajuddin P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 147; Pakistan v. Naseem Ahmad P L D 1961 S C 415 considered; Mian Rahmat Ali v. The General Manager, N. W. R.; Writ Petition No. 359 of 1957; North-Western Railway v. Ali A bid Shah Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1959 (unreported); Pakistan v. Manzoor Husnain, Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1959 (unreported) R. v. Secretary of State for War (1891) 2 Q B 326; R. v. Customs Commissioners (1836) 5 Ad. And El. 380; Rex v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal (1952) 1 K. B 338 and Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 11, Third Ed., p. 99 ref.]

[Pakistan v. Muhammad A. Hayat P L D 1962 S C 28 rel. State of Pakistan v. Mehrajuddin P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 147; Pakistan v. Naseem Ahmad P L D 1961 S C 445 considered ; Mian Rahmat Ali v. The General Manager, N. W. R. ; Writ Petition No. 359 of 1957 ; North-Western Railway v. Ali Abid Shah Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1959 (unreported) ; Pakistan v. Manzoor Husnain, Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1459 (unreported) R. v. Secretary of State for War (1891)2 Q B 326; R. v. Customs Commissioners (1836) 5 Ad. and El. 380 ; Rex v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal (1952) 1 K. B 333 and Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 11, Third Ed., p. 99 ref.]

Government -Suit against-Written statement by Government containing "absolute denials" of facts which came out "clearly" in evidence subsequently-Disapproved-Government not expected to raise all sorts of defences "in a spirit of sheer litigiousness" Must not "fight shy of admitting patent facts"-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XX VII, r. 1.

As constituted by public servants-Whether can be equated with "State" or "Sovereign."

Government Government-Party to proceeding before Court -No better rights than any other party-"Goverment, ed Croft", Vol. 2 by Sir Thomas Elyot reproduced in Oswald's "Contempt of Courts", Chap. IJI. Contempt of Court-Parties-Proceedings initiated on notice suo motu by High Court against Public Servant viz., Law Secretary to Government of Pakistan-Central Government aligning itself with respondent-Advocate-General not appearing "in support of notice"-Court asking another Advocate as amicus curiae to render assistance

Government Government-Whether liable for tortious acts of servants-English law Pakistan law.

Government Government-Actions of-Should be regarded as having been taken bona fide unless contrary established.

Government Suit against-Not in respect of sovereign acts but in relation to a business undertaking-Held, competent.