Writ Petition

Petitioner, land-owner whose land was acquired filed writ petition claiming that compensation for constructed building was not granted to him

Validity

After the award, the proper course for the petitioner was to apply to the Reference Court that he had not been paid compensation of the built up property which stance was taken before the Reference Judge but was disallowed, hence, same relief could not be claimed through a writ petition

Under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,any person who has not accepted award may by written application to the Collector require that matter be referred for determination by the Court regarding measurement of the land, amount of the compensation awarded, the person to whom it was payable or apportionment of compensation

The amount of compensation included the factor that if the built up structure was not assessed the interested person might file a reference for compensation of the built up property, as separate award of built up property was not required to be issued

As the petitioner at the time of award had not filed a reference for assessment of built up property and payment of its compensation, thus the stance taken by the respondents that the petitioner had raised construction after the award appeared to be attracted, and a person who raised construction after the award could not claim compensation of the said construction

Since an alternate remedy in shape of reference before the Reference Judge for payment of compensation of built up property was available to the petitioner, which he availed, thus, the writ petition in presence of alternate remedy was not maintainable

Writ petition, being merit-less, was dismissed.

Objection raised by the respondent-department was that other remedies in terms of Rr. 51 and 52 of the Gilgit-Baltistan Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2022 (Rules), before the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) and Procurement Review Committee (PRA), respectively, had not been availed before filing the writ petition

Validity

Respondents had issued letter of acceptance under Cl.3 directing the petitioner for provision of performance security/guarantee of an amount equal to 32.593% of the bid amount from any Schedule Bank of Pakistan, but instead of filing the complaint before the GRC as provided under the Rules, surprisingly the petitioner filed the writ petition, which was alien to the prescribed Rules and remedies available to the petitioner before the forums of GRC and PRC established under the Rules, as such without availing the remedies provided to him under the Rules, the writ petition was not competent

Writ petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Claim of the petitioner /Azad Jammu and Kashmir Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority (TEVTA) is that the respondents / Department did not serve any notice upon it under S. 114(4) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and only after issuance and service of notice under S. 114(4), the proceedings under S. 122(C) may be initiated

Validity

Although in S. 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, words "except an assessment order under S. 122(C)" have been omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, however, the constitutional petition was filed on 22-06-2016 prior to omission of the these words

Chapter III of the Ordinance, 2001 deals with appeal and S. 127 clearly ousts the jurisdiction of Appellate Forum against any order passed under S. 122(C)

Hence, there is no alternate, adequate, efficacious remedy except to invoke constitutional jurisdiction

Writ petition was allowed accordingly.

Every order passed by the Family Court during the pendency of a suit could not be treated as interlocutory, unless the nature of such order reflects so

To test whether an order passed on any application by the Family Court is to be treated as interlocutory or not it must be considered out what possible orders could be passed by the Judge Family Court on such application, and if the nature of any order appears to be final then it may not be treated as interlocutory, as in the present matter the Judge Family Court dismissed the application on the ground that the Family Court had got the jurisdictional competence to hear the case, thus, finally decided the question of jurisdiction, which could not be raised during subsequent proceedings before the Court except in appeal

Meaning thereby, that if any point was finally decided during the pendency of the suit, which went into the root of the case, then such orders could not be treated as interlocutory

Orders, which obtained finality, notwithstanding the pendency or final disposal of the case, appeal against such orders would be maintainable

Writ petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Allegedly, Electricity Department installed high voltage transmission wires 3/4 feet above the roof of petitioner's house

Petitioner's son got caught in the high transmission lines and was severely burned by electric shock

Petitioner moved an application before the Justice of Peace for the registration of criminal case against the responsible authorities of Electricity Department after fulfilling the formalities, but was dismissed

Validity

Record showed that no permission and consent of the landowner was obtained

No approved map issued for the installation of high transmission line was produced

It was an admitted fact that high voltage electricity transmission lines had been installed and passed above the house of petitioner without taking into account the relevant provisions of law

Section 12 of the Electricity Act, 1910, clearly barred the electricity department to lay down any electric supply line or other work without the consent of its owner or occupier

Taking into account the relevant provisions of Electricity laws and criminal law and its enabling provisions, the responsible staff and officials of electricity department appeared to be negligent and this negligent act, prima-facie, constituted a cognizable offence, which imposed criminal liability on them

An act of negligence was not always simple particularly when the negligence resulted into costing lives of innocent

The degree of negligence varied in its consequence from person to person

Version of the petitioner taken in his pleadings had not been denied specifically rather an earlier incident also took place in year 1994 due to which brother of petitioner was electrocuted for which he verbally and in writing reported the matter time and again before the concerned official and staff of electricity department

It was an admitted fact that the son of petitioner was badly burnt due to electric shock and remained under treatment in hospital, where he was admitted and discharged time and again because of treatment

As per report of concerned doctor, 12% of vital parts of body of petitioner's son were burned, which was clear from the snapshots appended along with writ petition

Thus, the concerned staff and officials of electricity department appeared to have been negligent in discharging their duties efficiently and diligently rather they were fully aware of the consequences of such negligence

Therefore, they prima facie appeared to be guilty of 'advertent negligence, which constituted a cognizable offence

Writ petition was accepted accordingly.

It is a pre-requisite qua maintainability of a constitutional petition to indicate any violation committed by the respondents' side under the rules and regulations by which petitioner was being governed

Constitutional petition would not be maintainable where petitioner failed to point any violation of law.

Petitioners sought direction to the respondents to restrain them from arresting and shifting the petitioners to Pakistan

Petitioners alleged that respondents wanted to arrest and transfer them on pretext of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Act, 1984, as well as Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Act, 1995, which was against the basic and fundamental rights of petitioners as well as other State subjects, thus, the same were not sustainable and were liable to be struck down

Validity

In the present case, FIR was registered against the petitioners, and other co-accused under Ss. 406 & 506, P.P.C, on the complaint of respondent No. 12

Allegation of embezzlement of amount of Rs. 90 lac had been levelled against the petitioners and other co-accused by the complainant

Concerned police were investigating the matter and accused-petitioners, had also been nominated in the alleged FIR, who were hiding themselves from the police and moved the petition

Circumstances of the case suggested that the concerned respondents had adopted the due course of law and had not committed any violation of law and rules

Petitioners, had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity on the part of respondents, thus, the request made by the petitioners through the present petition was without any substance

Case of the petitioners was mainly based on mere apprehensions

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Trial Court allowed the party to produce documents at later stage of proceedings, which order was maintained by the District Court

Validity

A writ petition can be filed where the orders passed by the Courts below are lacking jurisdictional competence or have been passed in derogation of law but when the Trial Court has exercised discretion in a judicious manner and the order of the Trial Court is maintained in revision petition ,then the same cannot be assailed in writ jurisdiction

No legal infirmity or lack of jurisdiction in the impugned orders was noticed

Documents allowed to be produced were necessary for just decision of the case

Impugned orders required no indulgence by the High Court

Writ petitions were dismissed , in circumstances .

Petitioner moved an application for Superdari of the vehicle impounded in a criminal case, which application was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate whereas the Sessions Court upheld the said order

Validity

Admittedly respondent No. 01 had purchased the impugned vehicle from one "AK" who purchased the same from one "GK"

At present the petitioner was not the owner of the impounded vehicle

Certificate issued by Pak Suzuki Motors Company showed that impugned vehicle was sold to "AA" and both the documents i.e. letter pad of "U" Motors and sale certificate of Pak Suzuki Motors clearly showed that neither the petitioner was owner of impugnded vehicle nor he was last possessor of vehicle in question

Record showed that during the first round of litigation the claim of the petitioner up to the Chief Court was not accepted and the Superdari of alleged vehicle was granted to the respondent No. 1 being last possessor, which he purchased form one "AK", as such at present the petitioner had no locus standi to again claim the superdari of vehicle in question

Writ petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner contended that government be directed not to make transfers/postings of civil servants as such act of the government had caused public exchequer a huge loss

Validity

Clause 1(a) of Art. 199 of the Constitution clearly postulates that High Court can make an order only on the application of any aggrieved party

Petitioner, being not an aggrieved party, could not competently make a resort to the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction

Petitioner had no locus standi for availing such jurisdiction

Neither had the petitioner any nexus with the transfers/postings, nor had he any concern with it, rather it was the sole prerogative of the concerned department of the government to transfer/post any suitable person from one place to another

Constitution petition was dismissed in limini.

Jurisdiction cannot be extended or inferred on a forum even with permission, no objection or acquiescence of a party.

Case of the petitioner was that the land in dispute was duly allotted and after the demise of allottee, same was devolved in favour of petitioners but, District Collector, while dealing with the petition of the non-petitioner, revoked the said allotment

Additional Commissioner dealing with the appeal of the appellant turned down the order of District Collector, which was maintained by the Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue, but Full Board of Revenue, while dealing with the appeal, again revoked the allotment

Record showed that the original deceased owner, prior to allotment in question, had a piece of land measuring 35 kanal 1/2 marla and 20 kanal 7 ½ marla

Deputy Collector observed that "respondent", after purchasing the piece of land measuring 04 kanal 18 marlas from his father, claimed himself a owner in Deh and while suppressing said purchase succeeded to obtain proprietary rights regarding a piece of land measuring 18 kanal 03 marla

District Collector while narrating the said factual position had opined that under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Khalsa Land (Amended) Act, 1989, a Nautor Kuninda stood entitled for proprietary rights, if his ownership in Deh was less than 30 kanals land but in the matter in hand ownership of the allottee was beyond the prescribed scale, so order of collector regarding allotment dated 18.03.1999 was not maintainable

Members of Full Board of Revenue, while examining the documents of parties brought on record, agreed with the findings of District Collector recorded vide order dated 18.02.2011 and observed that legal heirs of original owner failed to establish that the ownership of said owner was only 19 kanals and 10 marla, whereas, from the revenue record available at file it depicted that "at the time of preparation of file regarding allotment of proprietary rights, respondent was appointed as Girdawar who succeeded to attain proprietary rights beyond entitlement"

From the perusal of observation recorded by Members of "Full Board of Revenue" it was established that judgment impugned was based on evaluation of revenue record and in order to defeat the veracity and truthfulness of verdict of Members of Full Board of Revenue, petitioners had brought no documentary proof on record, rather some photocopies of revenue record had been annexed with the petition

Under law a photocopy could neither be treated as genuine nor the same could be relied upon, moreover, no documentary proof had been referred to on behalf of petitioners, whereas, on behalf of non-petitioner No.2, certified copies of relevant documents in support of their claim had been brought on record, meaning thereby that petitioners failed to point out any illegality in the judgment impugned through bringing a relevant proof in support of their claim

Moreover, in the matter in hand, all the concerned revenue hierarchy from Deputy Commissioner to Full Board of Revenue, in terms of nature of lis, was a necessary party and admittedly, the order of Deputy Collector dated 18.02.2011 was also against the petitioners but neither the Deputy Collector had been arrayed as a party nor his order dated 18.02.2011 had been assailed

Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court (AJ&K) in a writ petition was limited in nature and the High Court, while invoking writ jurisdiction, could not sit upon the judgment of subordinate Courts or local authorities or tribunal etc. as a court of appeal

Writ petition being devoid of substance was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner (Assistant Education Officer) filed writ petition seeking directions to set-aside a proposal assertly moved by the Speaker Legislative Assembly in grab of which he would be disturbed from his present place of posting

Held, that apprehension on the basis of facsimile of an alleged proposal of irrelevant office (Speaker Legislative Assembly) provides no room for interference as the Departmental Authorities are under legal obligation to abide by the Constitutionally mandate Rules i.e. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Rules of Business (Revised), 1985

Even otherwise, a proposal of the Speaker Legislative Assembly, for transfer and posting in the Education Department is not relevant, however, the competent authority is clothed with powers to transfer the petitioner as per exigencies of the Department

Thus no vested right can be claimed by the petitioner in said regard

Writ petition, filed by Officer in Education Department, being meritless, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Writ under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan applies only to cases involving the illegal assumption, non-exercise or irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts below

It cannot be invoked against the conclusion of law or facts which are result of irregular exercise of jurisdiction

Writ petition was dismissed.

Notification of posting/transfer transpired that the department had not committed any material irregularity, discrimination or illegality as the matter of transfer/posting of any government officer/official in routine was purely in the domain of the concerned competent authority which could not be challenged in the Court of law in writ jurisdiction

Petitioner had remained posted in the district since the year 2013 and was also unable to show that the concerned post did not exist where she was being transferred

Alleged mala fides in her posting/transfer were not proved from the record on the file

Department was fully empowered by law to transfer/post any subordinate government officer from one place to another and transfer of civil servant could be made by the competent authority in the exigency of services and in the public interest

Writ petition was dismissed.

Only an aggrieved person can file the writ petition.

Case of petitioner is that the upper age limit prescribed for contesting election of local bodies is ultra vires to the constitutionally fundamental guaranteed rights

Validity

Law recognizes such person as a voter who attains the age of eighteen years meaning thereby that he/she is qualified to elect his/her representative as per his/her choice and sweet will but simultaneously he/she is qualified to contest election of local bodies until he/she attains the age of twenty five years (which is a marked difference of seven years)

Such like barrier is not convincing enough for a prudent mind to accept this analogy as to how a person can be put out of arena to contest election of local bodies without exhibiting any rationale in this regard, thus, although in logical and rational parlance, age of eighteen years itself is sufficient equally for the purpose of contesting election of local bodies on the yardstick of constitutionally fundamental guaranteed rights i.e. Arts. 4(4)(1) & 4(4)(15) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, but it is up to the Legislature to expose its wisdom and to bring it in consonance with the constitutional guarantees

However, age of twenty-one years as unanimously prescribed by all the four provinces of Pakistan seems plausible in this regard at local bodies level

To declass a person/voter randomly in the guise of age is not a reasonable classification as no legislation or specific expertise is rationally required in this regard

Schedule 2 Part II Entry No. 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Local Government Act, 1990 inserted through Azad Jammu and Kashmir Local Government (Amendment) Act, 2021 is severable from the rest of Act

Impugned provision in parlance of the scheme of Constitution cannot stand ex proprio vigore and lacking the ratio legis (the reason or purpose of making a law)

Impugned legislation is liable to be sent in hibernation

Constitutional petition was accepted, in circumstances.

Case of petitioner is that the upper age limit prescribed for contesting election of local bodies is ultra vires to the constitutionally fundamental guaranteed rights

Validity

At the local bodies level no legislation or law-making is required at any stage

Scope and area of working/ performing duties of the members of local bodies is limited merely to the extent of local geographic limits

Working area and spheres have been circumscribed to the extent of local government issues meant for development schemes and uplifting the undeveloped areas

While on the other hand the public representatives in higher public fora i.e. Assembly and Senate have been bestowed with totally different job and are burdened with onerous liabilities qua legislation/law making, that is why the prescribed age limit for such like fora in different countries is even more than twenty-five years and the wisdom behind the same is crystal clear that the cumbersome task of law making and legislation inter alia with other qualities requires adequate maturity coupled with mental agility

Although maturity improves wisdom but information technology has rapidly brought the entire world even closer by introducing the concept of "Global Village" thus, wisdom and maturity ipso facto cannot be bracketed and tagged with age

Through the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Local Government (Amendment) Act, 2021 certain amendments have been introduced by the legislature inter alia by providing room to the women and youth members at the ratio of 12.5% each of the total number of seats for the District Council, Local Council/Union Council, Town Committee and Municipal Committee

When the law itself allows the entry of youth in local bodies by allocating/reserving seats (without prescribing age limit) then 25 years' barrier is meaningless and does not seem to serve the very purpose of law

Barrier of the age of 25 years has stood left or for that matter become redundant in this view of the matter after subsequent amendment

Impugned legislation is liable to be sent in hibernation

Constitutional petition was accepted, in circumstances.

Petitioners assailed the decisions of Grievance Redressal Committee and work order issued in favour of private respondent

Validity

Petitioners after adjudication of the matter by Grievance Redressal Committee instead of filing an appeal before the Authority in view of R. 48(7) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2017 opted to directly file the writ petition

Wisdom of an appellate fora was missing, particularly aspects and modalities with a cross version could have better been judged by the appellate fora as per scheme of special law and thereafter the petitioners could have come forward to attack both the decisions rendered by Grievance Redressal Committee and Authority in writ jurisdiction by pointing out any violation of law

Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 did not confer any substantive right on any party but provided only an additional remedy under extraordinary jurisdiction

Non-availability of adequate alternate remedy was also one of the primary test in this regard, beside other protocols

Writ petition was dismissed.

Controversial question of facts adjudication of which is possible only after obtaining all types of evidence in power and possession of the parties can be determined only by Courts having plenary jurisdiction in the matter and on such ground writ petition is incompetent.

Petitioners challenged Azad Jammu and Kashmir Elections Amendment Act, 2021, dated: 08.02.20221 to the extent of amendment in S. 24 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Elections Act, 2021 and further a direction was sought to the respondents not to remove the petitioners and other State subjects from the voters list according to which they were entitled to vote on temporary addresses

Validity

All the beneficiaries were necessary party but the petitioners had failed to implead them as party and in the absence of necessary party, no direction could be issued

Petitioners were not aggrieved persons, therefore, they could not have filed the writ petitions

Petitioners had no locus standi to file the writ petition

Petitioners themselves had got mentioned their permanent residences in the CNICs

No legal right of petitioners appeared to have been infringed, therefore, they did not fall within the definition of aggrieved persons

Writ petitions were dismissed, in circum-stances.

Person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something.

Judicial redress is available to a person who has suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his/her legal right or legally protected interest by the impugned action of the State or a public authority or any other person or who is likely to suffer a legal injury by reason of threatened violation of his/her legal right or legally protected interest by any such action

Basis of entitlement to judicial redress is personal injury to property, body, mind or reputation arising from violation, actual or threatened, of the legal right or legally protected interest of the person seeking such redress.

Only a person who has suffered legal injury can file a writ petition for redressal of his/her grievance and no third party can be permitted to have access to the Court for the purpose of seeking redressal for the person injured.

No writ can be issued in absence of a necessary party.

Every person by his own sweet will cannot file the writ petition as pro bono publico until and unless he fulfills the conditions to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Petitioner while invoking such jurisdiction has to show that he is litigating firstly, in public interest and secondly, for public good or for welfare of general public.

Petitioners called in question the vires of notifications issued by the Election Commission regarding formation of committees for verification of Electoral Rolls for the Constituencies of Refugees settled in Pakistan

Validity

Impugned notifications were issued in accordance with S.21(1) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Election Commission Act, 2020, with clear cut objective to enroll all the state subjects who were not holding State Subject Certificate

Election Commission after the consultation with all the concerned political parties had issued the impugned notifications correctly and rightly

Formation of committees also revealed that the committees did not consist upon the members of a single party rather the member of rival political parties were included in the committees having clash of interest, hence, no question of mala fide or arbitrariness or unreasonableness arose

Writ petition was dismissed.

Election Commission of Azad Jammu and Kashmir is empowered under Art. 50 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 to conduct elections of the Legislative Assembly of Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Election Commission is a constitutional body which performs its functions independently, freely, fairly and transparently

Acts done by Election Commission should not be interfered in an ordinary manner

Powers vested to the Election Commission are trust and can be expected to be performed objectively, reasonably, independently and in accordance with law

However, the possibility of breach of law, arbitrariness and mala fide cannot be overruled

In any constitutional petition, it is necessary for the petitioner to prove that the impugned act of the Commission is against the law, arbitrary or with mala fide, otherwise, the writ petition is not maintainable for academic discussions and it will amount to interference in the election process which is not warranted by law.

Petitioner had submitted his blank/incomplete tender application form before the relevant authority for different works which were forthwith rejected, whereas, the tendering process had been completed

Project was allotted in favour of four different contractors

Petitioner had failed to array the contractors' as parties in the writ petition

Contractors were necessary parties being beneficiaries

This sole ground was suffice for dismissal of the writ petition along with other reasons

Writ petition was dismissed.

Petitioner, a charitable institution, was allotted 50 kanals of land by the respondent through an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding)

Respondent vide impugned notification allotted 25 kanals 14 marlas in favour of another party

Contention of respondent was that since the petitioner had failed to utilize/make construction over the allotted land in compliance of MOU, therefore, the same was taken back

Validity

MOU contained no provision/condition to the effect that the respondent would cancel the allotment of land or reduce the acreage of the land on any pretext rather it was mentioned that on closing of the project, the built up structure would be the property of the respondent

Valuable right accrued in favour of the petitioner could not be snatched/taken back on any pretext, except with due course of law

Impugned notification was also hit by the principle of audi alteram partem

Writ petition was accepted and the impugned notification was set aside.

Cases, in writ jurisdiction, are decided on the strength of available convincing documents.

Whenever and wherever, it seems that administrative justice is not being done by the authorities to an aggrieved person who comes forward and knocks the door of the High Court, resultantly, High Court is zealous to provide aid to aggrieved person qua enforcement of his constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights as in such like eventuality people cannot be left on mere mercy of authorities.

Case of petitioner was that while performing his duties tooth and nail, he showed extraordinary performance and got injured due to a stray bullet from the protesting crowd; that he was recommended by Senior Superintendent of Police for "Quaid-e-Azam Police Medal"; that Deputy Inspector General of Police constituted a committee for awarding the medal to the petitioner but the committee reported that no extraordinary deed was performed by the petitioner; that against such recommendations, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Prime Minister; that the Prime Minister appointed Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education as hearing officer, who admitted the petitioner's claim; that thereafter the petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Secretary to the Prime Minister Secretariat; that the petitioner filed a review application before the Prime Minister and this time the application was accepted

Held; order passed by the Prime Minister upon review application had attained finality

Respondents could not sleep over the matter by making an inordinate delay

Respondents were directed to implement the order of the Prime Minister.

Public Service Commission advertised 13 posts of Lecturer Political Science; petitioner applied for the post and after qualifying the written testhe was placed at Serial No. 1 of the waiting list

Petitioner claimed that the department had withheld 10 posts of Lecturer Political Science at the time of issuance of advertisement, as such, Public Service Commission may be directed to appoint the petitioner

Validity

Petitioner in order to prove his claim regarding withheld posts had relied upon a notification which showed that the service of different ad hoc appointees had been extended for further six months but it related to those ad hoc appointees who had been adjusted against the lien

Contention of the petitioner was misconceived and misconstrued

Writ petition was dismissed.

Remedy of writ is equitable relief and equity demand that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands.

Relief in extraordinary jurisdiction is equitable in nature and equity demands that one who asks for equity must come with clean hands, meaning thereby that a person who chooses to come forward and invokes extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court must prove at the outset that he is the bona fide claimant

Remedy of writ is two edged weapon in the hands of the petitioner as it can cut both ways.

Remedy of writ is not akin to civil suit, it is an extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction provided to an aggrieved person in extraordinary circumstances, where, no alternate or adequate remedy is provided under law

Petitioner has to come forward purely with clean hands and in attire of bona fide

Mere stale and bald claim is not entertainable in extraordinary writ jurisdiction

Conduct of the petitioner is always to be filtered through lens of bona fide.

Petitioners sought direction to the authorities to promote the Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors against 50% reserved quota to all the categories i.e. Executive, Regular, Reserve, Rangers, Traffic Police, Crimes Branch and Special Branch and also fill the vacant posts through direct recruitment

Validity

Petitioners were seeking share from the quota fixed for direct recruitment

Remedy of writ was an extraordinary relief and litmus test for the petitioner asking for issuance of writ was that he should come with clean hands

Power in that regard was to be exercised in an extraordinary circumstances within the ambit and yardstick of the jurisdictional arena

Petitioners could take their grievance before the tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction i.e. Service Tribunal against adverse order or for that matter statutory rules detrimental to their service rights

Writ petition was dismissed.

High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction cannot sit over and step in the policy/administrative decisions of the government functionaries qua the welfare projects particularly when the stance of the petitioner is objected by the other side on factual grounds

Proper recourse in this regard is to file the civil suit in order to establish a specific fact by providing oral as well as documentary evidence

Extraordinary relief is justified only in extraordinary circumstances in favour of an aggrieved person, if any infringement of law or for that matter violation of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights is involved.

Plot in question, which belonged to a department of the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJ&K), was sold out through a public auction

Petitioner, who claimed to be the second highest bidder for the plot, challenged the auction proceedings

Held, that petitioner never remained a successful bidder in the first auction, while the successful bidder also failed to comply with the terms of bid, which ensued into a second bid process, which too had a similar fate

Third auction proceedings were conducted after giving advertisement for auction in a newspaper, however, in the said auction proceedings, petitioner did not participate, and one of the respondents was declared successful bidder ('the successful bidder')

Final acceptance of bid of successful bidder was issued including the payments' schedule, which had further been confirmed by the Cabinet of AJ&K Government

Said aspects postulated that the bid had been conducted in an open manner, wherein petitioner had not participated in any manner

Record further postulated that petitioner was part of 1st auction proceedings, whereby he himself withdrew his initial seed money, hence, his legal right to challenge the auction proceedings could not survive

Plot in question was sold out to the successful bidder and payment had also been made by it and the said plot had also been transferred to it, hence, present writ petition had also been filed at belated stage, and was hit by the doctrine of laches

Petitioner in 1st round of litigation approached the Islamabad High Court by filing a writ petition

After dismissal of the same, he opted to switch over and filed the present writ petition after about 05 years

Writ petition was dismissed.

In the absence of locus standi and legal grievance, no one can ask for indulgence of High Court in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

Accused persons sought quashing of FIR registered against them under Ss. 11, 16 & 19 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985

Main accused had not stated a single word about his marital ties with the victim and had simply alleged that he had been falsely implicated in the criminal case while at arguments stage, he had taken an abrupt U-turn and had come forward with the stance that he was husband of victim (who was stated to be pregnant) and also claimed to be father of a daughter aged 02 years from the wedlock

Nikah of victim with one of the respondents was an admitted fact while rest of the subsequent story was shrouded in mystery which required detailed evidence, probe and investigation which was not a job of the High Court

Investigation agency was allowed to probe into the matter in order to dig out the veracity of allegation, however, the accused persons could exhaust multiple statutory remedies available to them

Writ petition was dismissed.

Eventualities where an FIR can be quashed, detailed.

It is not a rule to decline interference in a extraordinary jurisdiction by shutting the door of Court qua quashing of an FIR in a mathematical manner, but it varies from case to case, and if facts of the case demand and extraordinary circumstances are oozing from the record High Court can move ahead to rescue the person from such a situation.

High Court should not interfere with the normal course of trial and quash the criminal proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution or S. 561-A, Cr.P.C.

Petitioners sought a direction to the respondents to stop unlawful activities of Quadianis in the State for preaching Ahmadism under the cover of word Muslims

Validity

Writ jurisdiction under Art. 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 could be exercised only if there was no alternate remedy available to the petitioners

Section 298-C, P.P.C., provided an alternate remedy to the petitioners

Section 298-C, P.P.C., provided that it was an offence to preach or propagate a faith by Quadianis group or Lahori group or by any other name and was punishable under the Penal Code

Writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

High Court is not empowered to grant relief beyond the scope of pleadings.

Comments filed by respondent are only meant for the Court and not for the petitioner as he has to stand on his own legs to prove his case in the writ petition.

State Subject Certificates showed that all the certificates were issued in different dates with same handwriting and pen, which made them suspicious

Prima facie, the certificates were not issued by the competent authority rather the same were prepared by the State Subject Certificate holders fraudulently

District Magistrate had adopted the process for cancellation of those State Subject Certificates which were illegally issued by the authority

Since the State Subject Certificates were not issued by the concerned authority, hence, the process for cancellation of the illegal State Subject Certificates was not required

Authority had categorically stated that the certificates were not issued from its office, therefore, authenticity and genuineness of the documents were not proved

Writ petitions were only filed to protect the ill-gotten gains

Law did not allow the petitioners to protect their illegal gotten gains by invoking writ jurisdiction

Writ petitions were dismissed.

Several remedies have been provided to an accused if he is of the view that he has been involved in the case illegally with mala fide intention and there is no chance of his ultimate conviction

Accused can agitate the matter before the investigation agency

Accused can approach the superior officers under S. 551 of Cr.P.C.

Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules, 1934, provides for cancellation of cases under order of Magistrate

Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. relates to release of accused when evidence is deficient

Section 249-A of Cr.P.C. also provides power to Magistrate to acquit accused at any stage

Section 265-K of Cr.P.C. also provides power of Court to acquit accused at any stage

High Court has no role at investigation stage unless some glaring violation of law is pointed out

If quashing of every case registered under S. 154, Cr.P.C. was allowed whole scheme of law would be frustrated which should not be allowed at any cost.