Vested Rights

While every past and closed transaction is normally based on or comprises of a vested right, every vested right is not necessarily a past and closed transaction

Indeed, if rights were required to be placed in ascending order, the 'scale' could be said to comprise of a 'bare' right, a 'vested right' and a 'past and closed transaction'

Ordinarily, a right can be regarded as progressing from a 'bare' right to become a 'vested right' and then perhaps even a 'past and closed transaction'

Of course, some rights only become vested rights, and do not go beyond to become past and closed transactions

Others may vest immediately, as soon as they arise or accrue, and then may (or may not) become past and closed transactions

Some rights (in rare and unusual situations) may even become past and closed transactions once they accrue, i.e., progress to that category straight from being 'bare' rights.

Mere handwritten endorsement made on the face of letter to the effect that "permission may be granted as per policy" could not be regarded as a definite approval conferring right to a licence

In light of prescribed procedure, there were various checks and compliances which had not even ensued at that point in time which all took place subsequent to that endorsement

Certain similar checks and compliances might already have been made at an earlier point in time in the context of petitioner company's arms dealership licence but same did not detract from the importance of such an exercise

Neither the Chief Minister nor any other public functionary had carte blanche whilst exercising any discretionary power, which must always be done fairly, justly and reasonably, and for advancing particular object/purpose for which it was conferred, in accordance with rules/regulations structuring that discretion

Highest authority for purpose of grant of any category of license as per Rule 3.1 of Sindh Arms Rules, 2018 was Chief Minister and the subject was not one of prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition otherwise falling under S. 6 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013

High Court directed the authorities that case/ application of petitioner company for grant of a small arms manufacturing license should be decided by Chief Minister through a speaking order, in accordance with Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and Sindh Arms Rules, 2018

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

In a broader sense rights can be categorized in three kinds: Fundamental rights are those rights which are conferred upon a citizen by the Constitution; Legal rights are those which are conferred upon a person by any law or statute other than the Constitution; Vested rights are those rights which are accrued to a person due to an act or omission, action or inaction of another person.

Meaning.

Judgment debtor depositing entire decretal amount, cost of funds and cost of suit in court before acceptance of highest bidder's bid by the court

Question as to whether after having been declared the highest bidder any vested right in the subject property was created in his favour extinguishing the judgment debtor's right of redemption

Held, that nature of a bid made in court auctions involving immoveable property, notwithstanding whether it was the highest or the lowest, was that of an offer which did not by itself give rise to any rights, as the same was always subject to acceptance by the Court after proper application of its judicial mind followed by the deposit of full purchase-money under O. XXI, R. 85, C.P.C.

Bid made at an auction was in the nature of an offer which did not mature into a contract/sale till its acceptance by the court

Sale of property factually took place when the bid was accepted by the court

Court always held the power to reject any or all the bids without assigning any reason which itself reflected that the declaration by the auctioneer as the highest bidder was not a "sale"

Since a bid, being an offer, standing alone did not create any legal relationship, and neither did the deposit by the highest bidder, it logically followed that no rights could be said to arise out of the same

Vested/third party rights accrued in favour of a bidder when the auction sale became complete, i.e. when a bid was accepted by the Court and thereafter the full purchase-money was deposited in terms of O. XXI, R. 85, C.P.C.

However, such vested right again was defeatable and would not take away the right of the mortgagor/ judgment debtor to redeem his/her property if he/she brought his/her case within the parameters of O. XXI, Rr. 89, 90, or R. 91, C.P.C.

If, however, no application under said provisions was made within the time limit prescribed by law or the same was rejected, the Court mandatorily confirmed the qualified sale and made it absolute under O. XXI, R. 92, C.P.C., transferring the title of the property in the name of the successful bidder/purchaser, unless a delayed application to set aside the sale was entertained

Supreme Court observed that once the auction was conducted successfully the auctioneer's report must be taken up in Court for orders at the earliest, if not on the next day, accepting or rejecting the sale; that to prolong the proceedings or to keep the auctioneer report pending for months altogether not only discouraged the public in general to participate in Court sale but affected the sanctity of the proceedings and also caused loss to financial institutions and recovery of public money

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Appellant impugned order whereby her Constitutional petition against Ministry of Interior for refusing to grant No Objection Certificate (NOC) for extension of visit visa, was dismissed

Contention of appellant, inter alia, was that she was married to a Pakistani national and was residing in Pakistan for the last 23 years, and as such, had a right to be granted extension of visa falling in category of "stay with husband visa"

Validity

Appellant could have applied for Pakistani citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1951 but did not intend to do so as she did not want to give up her original citizenship

Appellant had no vested right to be granted family visit visa for indefinite period of time and discretion exercised by the competent authority in present case was not shown to be arbitrary or fanciful

Impugned order was therefore rightly passed

Intra-court appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were employees at the University and were aggrieved of refusal to continue higher education via subsequent notification at the University

University assailed that petitioners had not sought "No Objection Certificate" to admission for higher education

Validity

Petitioners could neither show that they had ever applied through proper channel or had got "No Objection Certificate" or "leave certificate" from competent authority before applying for admission

Getting of admission by petitioners did not clothe them with a vested right when it was obtained in violation of University Rules and Instructions

Asserted right not obtained in accordance with law could not be termed as vested right, preventing authorities from exercising their locus poenitentiae

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

`Vested right` could mean no more than those rights which under particular circumstances would be protected from legislative interference (unless it was clearly intended)

As vested right was a right which vested upon equities, it had reasonable limits and restrictions.

Case of petitioner was with regard to regularization of his service which was de-regularized by means of order in question

Contract employee could not claim any vested right even for regularization of his service

High Court declined to interfere in de-regularization order passed against petitioner as constitutional petition was not maintainable in law

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of petitioners in Constitutional petition was that they had acquired vested rights for promotion and same could not have been taken away

Validity

Petitioners had passed departmental promotion examination and were on waiting list

Vested rights had acquired by the employees which could not have been done away by changing promotion Rules

Department had prerogative to formulate new Rules but rights acquired vis-à-vis old Rules could not be taken away retrospectively

Employees were aggrieved only with regard to promotion quota as they were on waiting list

Controversy did not fall within terms and conditions of service

Constitutional petition was maintainable, in circumstances

High Court sent copy of constitutional petition along with annexures to the department to treat the same as representation of employees and decide the same in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was disposed of, accordingly.

Vested right is inherent for common citizen and it cannot be taken away by few individuals to fulfil their personal needs.

Right to pension cannot be arbitrarily abridged or reduced except in accordance with law, as it is the vested right and legitimate expectation of a retired civil servant.

Vested rights could be taken away by express words and necessary intendment by legislature.

Rights which were completed and consummated so that nothing remained to be done to fix the right of the citizen to enjoy them, were vested rights

Vested right could be defined as 'some right' or interest in the property that had become fixed and established and was no longer open to doubt or controversy

Vested right was free from contingencies but not in the sense that it was exercisable anywhere and at any moment

Hardly there was any right, which could be so exercised; there must always be occasions at which and circumstances did not constitute contingencies, but were the peculiar characteristics of those rights

Rule that statutes should not be given a construction which would give them retrospective effect was, especially applicable to statutes, where such a construction would either destroy or impair vested rights

Such statutes should be construed, if possible, as applying only to future cases; that was as having no retrospective operation.

Connotation.

Vested right could be taken away retrospectively only through an enactment passed by an assembly or parliament but not through subordinate legislation i.e. through issuance of notification by executive.

Vested right is created when it is considered mature in all aspects and no contingency exists before its completion.

Any amendment in law does not take away, empower, nullify or destroy a vested right which has attained finality and has become past and closed transaction.

Petitioner was allotted property and approval for construction of the same was granted subject to certain terms and conditions

Construction other than permissible covered area was not allowed

Circulation and utility areas were not to be used as covered areas

Petitioner was not to occupy the building without obtaining "completion certificate" from the Authority

Even if there was any omission in the building same would not relieve the petitioner from any obligation

If approval granted for construction was in violation of Regulations, it was the law that had to prevail

Petitioner could not claim any vested right accrued to it by violation of Regulations

Authority had only suspended the approval for construction and had invited the petitioner to raise concern/reservations

Petitioner had filed representation before the Authority which was still pending

Approval granted in favour of petitioner had not yet been cancelled

No prejudice had been caused to the petitioner

Impugned letter was not in violation of principles of natural justice

Question of fact could not be looked into or adjudicated by the High Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction

No one could occupy any building unless completion or permission to occupy the same had been obtained from the Authority

Petitioner by occupying the building without completion had violated the terms of approval

Action taken by the Authority was in accordance with the findings and recommendations of Inquiry Committee

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Executive cannot obliterate a vested right.

Vested right should in letter and spirit be enforced at all costs, except where it was unenforceable on account of any specific legal bar or it stood obliterated or taken away by or under the law.

Executive cannot obliterate a vested right.

When merely the passing of a formal order remained in order to finalize the status of claimant; then such entitlement qualified as a "vested right".

Merely on basis of presumption or inference, valuable and vested rights of a party could not be decided or taken away or decree validly passed in favour a party by a competent court could not be set aside.

No valid and vested right could be founded upon an order, which by itself was against the law.

Illegality could not create vested rights.

Vested right is that right which is complete in all respects and is not dependent on any contingency.

Where a lawful dispensation was issued by a competent authority that was duly acted upon by its beneficiary created valuable rights

Such vested rights although created under an executive instrument could not be revoked without compensation except through legislation.

If an exemption from payment on excise duty or any other tax has been granted for a specified period on certain conditions, person who fulfils those conditions acquires a vested right.

Legislature has authority to take away or affect any vested right of a person retrospectively.

Principles.

Past and closed transaction especially in realm of fiscal statute stands on a footing higher than vested rights.

Benefit of subsequent change, if improves position of such person, ought not to be denied to him.

Principles.

There is hardly any right which can be so exercised and there must always be occasions at which and circumstances under which they may be exercised

Such rights have peculiar characteristics of their own.

There is hardly any right which can be so exercised and there must always be occasions at which and circumstances under which they may be exercised

Such rights have peculiar characteristics of their own.

Vested right would not create on the basis of direction made by higher Revenue Authority to lower Revenue Authority touching a pure administrative act.

Any change in law would not affect accrued rights, and past and closed transactions.

Vested rights originate from contracts, statutes and by operation of law.

Such right is free from contingencies, but not in the sense that it can be exercised anywhere and at any moment, nor there is hardly any right which can be so exercised

Occasions and circumstances do not constitute contingencies but_are the peculiar characteristics of those rights.

Vested rights originate from contracts, statutes and by operation of law.

Vested right means the right which is complete and consummated so that nothing remains to be done to fix the right.

Where Competent Authority had not issued any formal allotment letter of,any plot of land to the petitioner, no vested right lead accrued in favour of the petitioner on the basis of order of the Chief Minister.

Where a particular executive construction has held field for a considerable period of time many a rights are created in the process based upon continued reliance thereupon

Departure from such construction cannot be casually allowed because, in the process vested rights may come to be disturbed or destroyed

Mere executive change of opinion in the context, therefore, is not easily to be upheld

Element of estoppels can to be invoked in such situations

Even manifestly wrong construction not merely placed upon rules or instructions but upon the statutory law itself cannot also be easily brooked.

Concept. The term "vested right" has not been defined by any statute.

Such right cannot be claimed to have been created on the basis of a forged document.

Where any policy or direction having no statutory backing is given for guidance to the officers of a department, no claim of vested right can be based on such policy or direction or instructions.

Vested Rights Where vested right had matured in favour of someone through fulfilment of all requirements of law and adverse action- had been taken in exercise of executive power, such action could be declared to be unlawful.

Respondent's application for correction of number of plots was turned down because of change in policy of allotment of plots whereby all quotas were abolished

Respondent's Constitutional petition was accepted with direction to Authority to allot plot to respondent

Intra-Court Appeal filed by Authority was dismissed

Validity

Respondent having been found to be eligible to allotment of plot and as a matter of fact having been allotted plot, Authority could not go back upon its commitment and any change in policy could not be applied retrospectively to respondent

High Court having dealt with exhaustively with all points in controversy, no interference was called for with orders passed by it

Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)-

Right was a matter of grant and would become vested only when it stood granted and thereafter it could not be taken away with retrospective effect.