Notification

It is a proposition in jurisprudence and the principle of interpreting a notification and/or an executive order that they operate prospectively and not retrospectively.

Petitioner sought clearance of his consignments under Afghan Transit Trade on the plea that goods were imported prior to issuance of notification SRO No.1397(I)/2023 dated 3-10-2023

Validity

Transit Agreement of 1965 was replaced with the 2010 Agreement

Provision of notification SRO 151(I)/2004 dated 10-03-2004 still refers to Art. X of the Agreement (without specifying the year)

In the new Agreement of 2010 Art. X relates to and deals with Licensing of Transport Operators

This appeared to be a mistake on the part of Ministry of Commerce, that since year 2010, the notification SRO 151(I)/2004 dated 10-03-2004 was not amended accordingly

Even when notification SRO 1397(I)/2023 dated 03-10-2023 was issued, they again failed to take care of it and the same mistake still continued

Not withstanding that the Ministry of Commerce, Federal Government may have powers in terms of S.3(1) of the Import and Export Control Act, 1950, a ban could not be imposed unilaterally on the goods which had already been shipped and for which Bills of Lading were already issued

Such action by authorities was too harsh and also against the settled principle of protection to vested rights besides being impractical

Principle of vested right as enunciated by the Courts of law was applicable to the goods in dispute and the same were to be governed by the policy as in vogue prior to the issuance of SRO 1397(I)/2023 dated 03-10-2023

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Amnesty notification being beneficial subordinate legislation must be viewed liberally in favour of the taxpayer in order to achieve the solitary fiscal objective of quick recovery of stuck up tax revenue.

Amnesty notification being beneficial subordinate legislation must be viewed liberally in favour of the taxpayer in order to achieve the solitary fiscal objective of quick recovery of stuck up tax revenue.

Objection of notification is to disclose intention and need of government and also to give notice to public at large that land subject matter of Notification is required for public purpose

Notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is merely introductory measure, tentative in nature and furnishes foundation of carrying out subsequent proceedings of acquisition as well as it is amounting to a cautioning pubic that any transaction / alienation made subsequent to issuance of notification would be at risk and cost of respective parties.

Issuance of notification under S.6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is a conclusive declaration that land is needed for public purpose

Object of S.17 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is to allow an authority to proceed with matter without waiting completion of other formalities

Once possession of land is taken under S.17 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereafter title of land for all intents and purposes vests free from all encumbrances in the name of government and ownership of previous proprietor by operation of law stand ceased/extinguished whereafter land owner was stripped off from legal authority / right to make any transaction of acquired land

Any person who purchases acquired land during or after acquisition proceedings is debarred to challenge acquisition proceedings and if any sale / alienation of land so acquired is executed that would be void and non-existence in the eyes of law.

Executive order or notification which is detrimental or prejudicial to the interest of a person, cannot operate retrospectively

However, beneficial executive order/notification issued by the executive functionary can be given retrospective effect.

Notification which imposes or enhances liabilities cannot be given retrospective effect to the extent of rights already stood created and if the same is beneficial it may be given retrospective effect.

Notification cannot be given retrospective effect to the extent of rights already stood created but when the same is beneficial it can be given retrospective effect.

Notification which was duly published in the official gazette took effect from the date on which it was published except otherwise provided in the notification itself.

Notification which was duly published in the official gazette took effect from the date on which it was published except otherwise provided in the notification itself.

In ordinary circumstances, the non-publication of a Notification in the Gazette did not affect its validity except for in limited situations such as when a statute made publication in the Gazette mandatory or where the rights and liabilities of other persons were involved.

General rule is that a notification cannot operate retrospective but in case it removes defects, superfluities or mischiefs from an existing notification to advance remedy for enforcement of existing rights, it can be applied retrospectively by the issuing authority or courts can identify the injury or hardship being removed and declare it accordingly, before holding it to apply retrospectively.

Acquiring Agency issued the addendum to include further lands in already proposed lands after about decade of issuance of notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Held, that Acquiring Agency had issued the addendum-in-question just to deprive the landowners from the proper and adequate compensation of their lands proposed to be acquired

While making the award under the land, the compensation of the acquired land was determined on the basis of the prices prevailing in that area in the preceding one year of the notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

If the notification under S.4 of the Act was to be allowed to continue through the addendum, the same would amount to allow the Acquiring Agency to give compensation of the acquired land to the land owners at the rates prevailing in the year preceding the one year in which the notification under S.4 of the Act was issued

If addendum was disallowed, the Acquiring Agency would have to pay the present price of the land

Price of the land was ever increasing and there was a lot of difference in value of the land in about decade which could not be equated with present rate as prices of the land had increased manifold during said period

Potential value of land proposed to be acquired had also increased as various housing schemes/societies had been developed nearby

Act of the Acquiring Agency to issue addendum after a decade of issuance of notification under S.4 of the Act was not only mala fide on their part but also a "dacoity" on the rights of the landowners aimed at to get undue benefit therefrom by depriving the landowners from the true value of their properties which was not only unjustified but also indefensible

High Court set aside impugned notifications under Ss.4 & 17(4) of the Act, 1894 as well as the addendum

Acquiring Agency were, however, at liberty to acquire the land for construction of the proposed dam by way of issuance of fresh notification under S.4 of the Act

Constitutional petitions were allowed, in circumstances.

Administrative instructions or notifications which are not even delegated legislation in the strict sense cannot possibly be allowed to operate retrospectively so as to impair already accrued rights and benefits.

Notification cannot take precedence over the codified law and in case of any conflict between administrative notification and a law, latter will prevail and such notification which is in conflict with or in derogation of the substantive provisions of the law or statute is not sustainable.

Notifications do not operate retrospectively unless the statute under which they are issued provides for such retrospectivity

Same principle applies to the policies made by the Executive.

Notification which had been issued and published in the official gazette would be presumed to have been issued for the information of general public.

Retrospective effect could not be given to a subsequent notification.

Terms of a notification had to be applied evenly and to all parties to that notification on whom obligations had been cast

Any act which infringed equality and perpetrated unequal treatment in its operation was unreasonable.

Beneficial notification could operate retrospectively and notification impairing an existing right would operate prospectively.

Effect of a notification would start from the date it was issued particularly if it was to take away certain rights, unless it was stipulated otherwise in the notification itself.

Notification without publishing the same in the official gazette would be termed as non-existent and superstructure built upon the same would automatically fall.

While issuing a notification in terms of delegation powers under an enactment, the Federal Government had to act in a manner laid down by the constitution, and unless procedural formalities had been complied with, the notification so issued must be struck down as void ab initio.

Notification issued in exercise of executive powers or in the shape of subordinate legislation was not to be retrospective in operation.

Notification/instruction of government was to be strictly followed and same would carry status of law if it was not in conflict with any law or the Constitution.

Notifications, instructions, circulars, etc., issued by the Government or statutory bodies would operate prospectively and not retrospectively.

Notification or an executive order would operate prospectively and not retrospectively unless specifically provided otherwise.

Administrator Auqaf took control of suit property against which petition was moved which was dismissed on the ground of limitation

Validity

Extension in limitation could be given only to the party who had been prosecuting his case with due diligence

Petitioners filed writ petition though an alternate efficacious remedy was available to them

Time consumed in prosecution of writ petition till the withdrawal of same could not be said to have been consumed bonafidely

Even wrong advice of counsel did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay

Application filed on behalf of applicants was time barred and had rightly been dismissed

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Notification not published in the Official Gazette had no legal sanctity.

Notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is merely an introductory measure, tentative in nature and furnishes foundation of subsequent proceeding for acquisition

Such is a caution to public that any transaction/alienation made subsequent would be at the risk and cost of respective parties

Purpose of such notification is to carry on preliminary investigation to find out whether the land is required for public purpose or otherwise

Government through such notification expresses its tentative primary intention to acquire land for public purposes which cannot be considered as conclusive and ultimate decision of government rather it is a precautionary notice/warning to public at large.

Notification issued in the official gazette had a presumption of notice to all.

Electricity distribution companies were legally entitled to make recommendation for consumer end tariff and send the same to the Authority/NEPRA for approval

Where the Authority approved the same, the Federal Government had no option but to notify the consumer end tariff, determined by NEPRA, in the official gazette

If the Federal Government had not notified the recommendation in official gazette then it could be held that the same was done, with an intention not to forward the benefit to the public at large given by NEPRA

High Court directed Federal Government to issue notification within specified time accordingly

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. .

Notifications, instructions and circulars issued by the government or statutory bodies could operate prospectively and not retrospectively.

Notification would operate only prospectively and not retrospectively.

Publication of the notification in the official Gazette was not sine qua non for its legal validity, efficacy and its non-publication was of no consequence.

Notification is an act of notifying or giving notice as given in words or anything which communicated information.

Gazetted notification bearing a particular date is presumed to be published on the date indicated thereon unless proved otherwise

If by leading evidence it can be shown by any interested party that gazette was actually published (or made available to public) on a date subsequent to the date indicated on the gazette, then that subsequent date is taken as date of actual publication (i.e. the act of making it public)

Such date is rendered as relevant date from which gazette comes into force.

Notification would operate only prospectively.

Scope.

'Vested right' could not be taken away retrospectively and adversely through notification.

Notification could be included in definition of law.

Contention of petitioner was that her husband was a government employee and authorities by violating relevant notification had decided to transfer her outside of the municipal limits where her husband was posted

Validity

Petitioner-employee was performing her duties as Assistant Professor in Fatima Jinnah Post Graduate College for Women Muzaffarabad and her husband was performing his duties within the municipal limits of Muzaffarabad as Deputy Director

Husband and wife were entitled to be posted at one station as far as possible

Female civil servant was to be transferred nearest to residence of her husband even if he was not a government servant

Petitioner-employee was entitled to equitable relief of writ jurisdiction

Authorities were restrained to transfer the petitioner-employee from the post of Assistant Professor Fatima Jinnah Post Graduate College for Women Muzaffarabad till her husband remained posted at Muzaffarabad

Writ petition was accepted in circumstances.

Void notification could not be enforced.

Circular would be notification having force of law but same could not be termed as “legislative instrument” which could curtail the accrued vested right.

Notification could be given retrospective effect if the same went to comfort the tax payer.

Nothing could be added or subtracted to suit ones opinion as that would amount to redundancy which had to be avoided.

In absence of amendment of Notification, clarification issued by department could only be termed as opinion and it would not at all amend the notification.

Notification could not be made applicable with retrospective effect.

Omission to mention the relevant provision of law in a notification or wrong mentioning thereof did not make any difference especially when the context and language of the document vividly encompassed the purpose and legal backing thereof.