Delegated Legislation Notes

Note: First of All go through File A to Z (Link is given in
description) and consider:

 3rd Lecture ADA Exam Preparation (How to
prepare third paper Constitution &
Administrative Law
 Material: Delegated Legislation by Hamid
Khan
 Material: Delegated Legislation by Ahmar
Somuro
 Material: Delegated Legislation by Syed
Najam
 Material: Guide Khuram Aamir
Case Law Study on “Delegated Legislation”

Meaning & Definition:
Delegated legislation---Scope and meaning of---Difference between a
legislative and an executive or administrative instrument---delegated
legislation was that which proceeded from any authority other than
sovereign power and was therefore dependent for its continued
existence and validity on some superior or supreme authority---
delegated legislation was also referred to as secondary legislation or
subordinate legislation or subsidiary legislation and was a law made by
an executive authority under powers given to them by primary
legislation in order to implement and administer the requirements of
such primary legislation---delegated legislation was thus law made by a
person or body other than the Legislature but with Legislature's
authority--- - ---Parent statute must clearly delegate such power of
legislation to the authority in order to carry out the purposes of an Act.
(PLD 2016 Lahore 237)
Delegated legislation---Principles---Discretion, exercise of---Scope---

delegated legislation entitled the delegate to carry out the mandate of
the legislature, either by framing rules, or regulations, which translated
and applied the substantive principles of law set out in the parent
legislation or by recourse to detailed administrative directions and
instructions for the implementation of the law---delegated legislation
was intended to enforce the law, not override it, and it could be used
to fill in details but not vary the underlying statutory principles---In case
of conflict delegated legislation must yield to the legislative will, as it
was below and not above the law---Minutiae could be filled in but the
basic law could neither be added to nor subtracted from. (2015 SCMR
630)
Necessity of Delegated Legislation:

Reasons justifying need for delegated legislation---Firstly, there is
pressure on parliamentary time; secondly, the technicality of subject
matter necessitates prior consultation and expert advice on interests
concerned, and thirdly, the need for flexibility is established because it
is not possible to foresee every administrative difficulty that may arise
to make adjustment that may be called for after the statute has begun
to operate. (2013 SCMR 642)
Scope of “Delegated Legislation”:

Provisions of a statute, if they dealt with a subject matter in
considerable detail, then scope of delegated legislation correspondingly
became limited and if a statute generally dealt with the subject matter,
then scope of delegated legislation made under it shall become greater
and it was assumed that legislature consciously decided to leave details
to be filled out by delegated legislation. (2020 PTD 752)
Derivative Force of Delegated Legislation:
Delegated or Subordinate Legislation is the legislation deriving
authority and legal cover from the provisions of the parent statute.
Limitation on delegated legislation:
Rules framed under a statute could not override the provisions of the
statute under which they were framed and on which their existence
was dependent. Any policy framed could not override the rules which
was otherwise a subordinate legislation. (2021 PLC (CS)N 272)
Various Forms of Delegated Legislation:
 Notifications
 Rules
 Regulations
 Circulars
Citation Name: 2002 CLC 1819 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Case
Interpretation of Statutes ---- Power to issue Notification, Orders, Rules or

Bye-laws would include power to add, amend, vary or rescind Orders, Rules or
Bye-laws---delegated legislation could be described as orders, rules,
regulations, schemes, licences and instruments---Any nomenclature could be
used by the enabling Act---Term "scheme" was used where power was given
to make detailed arrangements for some matter considered to be in need of
general statutory administration---Scheme/bye-laws could be struck down as
ultra vires on five main grounds if statutory procedure prescribed for making
them, had not been followed; if they were repugnant to provisions of some
other statute; if they conflicted with parent Act itself; if they were uncertain,
and if they were unreasonable---Item of delegated Legislation was, by a
paradox, grant of executive power to a person or body under legislative
powers conferred by enabling Act---Vagueness, ambiguity, arbitrariness and
uncertainty could render a regulation/ scheme void. (2002 CLC 1819)
Object & Purpose:
Delegated/subordinate legislation is always aimed to further the object
and purpose of the law and was is deemed as an effective measure to
keep the law well abreast with the change of time and embrace
modernism in functional efficiency by exercising the mandate provided
under the law. (2021 PTD 892)
Invalidate/ Bad Delegated Legislation:
 Against Fundamental Rights (2020 PTD 892)
 Conflicted with any provision of Constitution (2020 PTD 892)
 Lack of Legislative Competence on the part of delegatee making it
(2020 PTD 892)
 Beyond the scope of parent statute (2020 PTD 892)
---Subordinate legislation---Effect---Rules are in the category of subordinate

legislation and such legislation can never have overriding effect on an Act of
Parliament---Even if one subordinate legislation is repugnant to other
subordinate legislation, it does not make either of them to be invalid---In
order to make a subordinate legislation to be invalid it has to be shown that
either it is beyond the jurisdiction of the authority exercising power of
delegated legislation or it was violative of the provisions of the Act of
Parliament or is repugnant to any provision of the Constitution. (2006 PTD
1036)
Subordinate and delegated legislation---Scope--- Rules and regulations are

subordinate and delegated legislation deriving authority and legal cover from
the provisions of parent statute---Rules framed under statute cannot override
provision of the statute under which they were framed and on which their
very existence was dependent---Power to make subordinate
legislation/rules/regulations is derived from enabling statute and the
delegatee on whom such power is conferred has to act within the limits of
authority conferred by the statute---Rules cannot be made to supplant the
provisions of enabling statute but to supplement the same---Delegatee is not
authorized to make a provision beyond the policy of the statute---Delegatee
cannot override the statute either by exceeding the authority or by making
provisions inconsistent with the statute---Rules made under a statute are
treated for the purpose of construction as if they were in the enabling statute
and are to be of the same effect as if contained in the statute--- Rules are to
be consistent with the provisions of the statute and if a rule goes beyond what
the statute contemplates, the rule must yield to the statute--- General power
to make rules or regulations for carrying out or giving effect to the statue is
strictly ancillary in nature and cannot enable the authority on whom the
power is conferred to extend the scope of general operation of the statute---
Rule making authority cannot widen the purpose of statute or to add new and
different means to carrying them out or to depart from or vary its terms.
(2018 YLR 1785)
Subordinate and delegated legislation---Construction---Invalidity of delegated

legislation---Scope---Rules and regulations were subordinate and delegated
legislation deriving authority and legal cover from provisions of parent statute
and power to make subordinate legislation/rules/regulations was derived
from enabling statute and such delegatee was not authorized to make a
provision beyond the policy of the statute---Delegated legislation could not
override the statute either by exceeding authority or by making provisions
inconsistent with parent statute---General power to make rules or regulations
for carrying out or giving effect to the statute was strictly ancillary in nature
and could not enable an authority on whom the power was conferred to
extend the scope of general operation of the statute---Rule-making authority
cannot widen the purpose of statute or add new and different means of
carrying them out or to depart from or vary its terms---Rules/ regulations
which the rule-making authority has power to make, was liable to be declared
invalid if powers entrusted for one purpose were deliberately used with
design of achieving another; or if it shows on its face a misconstruction of
enabling law or a failure to comply with conditions prescribed under the
parent statute for the exercise of the powers or if it was not capable of being
related to any purpose mentioned in the parent statute---Legislature must
retain in its own hands the essential Legislative functions which consist of
declaring Legislative policy and laying down the standard which was to be
enacted into a rule of law, and what could be delegated was the task of
subordinate legislation---Rules/regulations continue to be rules subordinate to
the parent statute, and though for certain purposes, including the purpose of
construction, they were to be treated as if contained in the statute, their true
nature as subordinate legislation was not lost---Rule of interpretation was that
if subordinate legislation was directly repugnant to general purpose of the
statute which authorized it, or was repugnant to any well-established principle
of statute, it was either ultra vires altogether, or must, if possible, be so
interpreted as not to create an anomaly---Reconciliation, if was found to be
impossible between the provision of statute and the rules/regulations made
thereunder; then such rules/regulations shall be held to be ultra vires the
parent statute. (PLD 2019 Lahore 206)
Constitutional Provisions Dealing with Delegated Legislation:

 Article 98 of the Constitution
 Article 141 & 142 of the Constitution
Parliamentary Control of Delegated Legislation:
Delegatee must have legislative guidelines to formulate Rules and
Regulations, and such guidelines, contours or boundaries must come
from the Legislature (Parliament) itself. Legislature could confer upon
any person or body the power to make subordinate/delegated
legislation (Rules, Regulations or byelaws, etc.) in order to give effect to
the law enacted by it yet it must perform itself the essential legislative
function, i.e. to exercise its own judgment on vital matters of policy and
enact the general principles providing guidance for making the
delegated legislation. (PLD 2020 SC 01)
Judicial Control over Delegated Legislation (Judicial Review):
Art. 199---Judicial review---Scope---High Court has jurisdiction under
Art. 199 of the Constitution to examine validity of any Act of Parliament
or delegated legislation including notifications---If any law, act or
notification violates any provision of the Constitution, including
Fundamental Rights, same can be struck down---Law must not be
declared unconstitutional unless statute is placed next to the
Constitution and no way can be found in reconciling the two there is
presumption in favour of constitutionality---If there are two
interpretations, one in favour of constitutionality must be adopted.
(2018 YLR 222)
High Court can exercise its Constitutional jurisdiction in terms of
Art.199 of the Constitution to examine any act, notification, Act of
Parliament for delegated legislation including notification, which
violated any provision of the Constitution including fundamental rights
and the same can be struck down as no unfettered powers / discretion
are available to authorities, which can be applied in discriminatory
manner. (PLD 2021 Isb 144)
History & Retrospective Effect of Delegated Legislation:

Concept---Levy of duty by delegated legislation---Scope---Concept of
delegated legislation" had gained momentum with the mushroom
population growth, the dire need for "good governance" and the
ultimate aim to cater for the essential basic needs of every segment of
the society to bolster and fulfil the attributes of an "Islamic Welfare
State"---Present day Parliament could not possibly legislate on each
and every detail of the vast legislative needs---"Delegated legislation",
was whereby the legislature through legislation delegated to the
Government or any other specified authority to legislate through rules,
regulations, orders, instructions or any other instrument in conformity
with the dictates of the parent statute---"Delegated legislation" could
surely be challenged on the ground of being excessive, beyond the
authority of the parent statute; further sub-delegating, what was
delegated by the parent statute; and finally that the same was not
properly made public to all---Levy of duty through `delegated
legislation', was not ultra vires---All legislation, more so "delegated
legislation", were to be prospective in the effect and applicability,
unless same had been expressed to be otherwise; and that too with the
backing of the parent statute---If an instrument of "delegated
legislation", such as a notification, would impair or disturb or adversely
affect or reduce any benefit or impose a liability or any other way affect
the interest or right of a person, it would always be prospective in
operation and not retrospective. (PLD 2011 Peshawar 120)
Legislation ---delegated legislation---Power to legislate

retrospectively---Subordinate legislation by a delegated legislative
authority cannot be given retrospective effect unless, the statute under
which delegation of legislative power was made, expressly provided as
such---Where the statute does not delagate legislative power to the
Government to legislate retrospectively, Government would be
deemed to have been conferred jurisdiction of prospective legislation.
(1990 CLC 171)
Outline of “Delegated Legislation”

1- “Legislation”; Definition
2- Classification of “Legislation”
i. Supreme Legislation
ii. Delegated Legislation
3- Alternate terms for “Delegated Legislation”
a. Secondary Legislation
b. Subordinate Legislation
c. Subsidiary Legislation
d. Ancillary Legislation
e. Administrative Legislation
f. Quasi-Legislation
4- “Delegated Legislation”; Meaning:
5- “Delegated Legislation”; Definition:
6- Historical Background
7- Necessity/ Reasons for Rapid Growth
8- Various Forms of Delegated Legislation
 Orders
 Rules
 Regulations
 Notifications
 Circulars
 Scheme
 Instructions
 By-Laws
 Instrument
 License
9- Illustrations/ Examples
10-Principles pertaining to “Delegated Legislation”
i. Authority Competent to make delegated legislation:
ii. Salient Features of a Good Delegated Legislation:
a) It is in line with the provision of parent statute.
b) It is made by following the procedural rules provided by the
main statute.
c) It is not contrary to the provision of the Constitution or any
other statute
d) It is certain and not vague or ambiguous
e) It is reasonable and not arbitrary
f) It is properly published
iii. Scope
iv. Object & Purpose
v. Derivative Force of Delegated Legislation
vi. Constitutional Provisions
vii. Retrospective Effect
viii. Publication
ix. Limitations:
 Delegated Legislation cannot be contradictory to parent statute
 Delegated Legislation cannot be made by bypassing the statutory

procedure prescribed for making it.
 It cannot be repugnant to the provisions of other statutes.
x. Bad Delegated Legislation

xi. Remedy against delegated legislation
xii. Rule of Interpretation
xiii. Effect of Delegated Legislation
11-Control of Delegated legislation
a. Judicial Control/ Judicial Review
b. Parliamentary Control
c. Procedural/ Executive Control
12-Classification/ Kinds
i. Title based
ii. Discretion Based
iii. Purpose Based
iv. Authority Based
v. Nature Based
Case Laws:
Citation Name: 2021 PLC(CS)N 272 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Bookmark this Case
ABDULLAH VS PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN
Rules and regulations were subordinate and delegated legislation deriving
authority and legal cover from the provisions of the parent statute---Rules
framed under a statute could not override the provisions of the statute under
which they were framed and on which their existence was dependent---Any
policy framed could not override the rules which was otherwise a subordinate
legislation.
Citation Name: 2021 PTD 892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Case
CHENAB FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Delegated/subordinate legislation---'Notifications' as a form of delegated
legislation---Purpose and scope---Subordinate or delegated legislation derived
its authority from the primary law and could not go beyond its scope---Such
legislation was always aimed to further the object and purpose of the law and
was deemed as an effective measure to keep the law well abreast with the
change of time and embrace modernism in functional efficiency by exercising
the mandate provided under the law.

Case
Delegated/subordinate legislation, vires of---Strong presumption of
constitutionality, legislative competence, legality, reasonableness and intra
vires was attached with subordinate legislation---To strike down such
delegated legislation, the challenger was required to show that the same
impinged upon Fundamental rights, or conflicted with any Constitutional
provision, or there was lack of legislative competence on part of the
delegatee making it, or it was being beyond the scope of the parent statute.
Citation Name: 2021 PLD 343 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Case
Delegated/subordinate legislation---'Notifications' as a form of delegated
legislation---Purpose and scope---Subordinate or delegated legislation derived
its authority from the primary law and could not go beyond its scope---Such
legislation was always aimed to further the object and purpose of the law and
was deemed as an effective measure to keep the law well abreast with the
change of time and embrace modernism in functional efficiency by exercising
the mandate provided under the law.

Case
Delegated/subordinate legislation, vires of---Strong presumption of
constitutionality, legislative competence, legality, reasonableness and intra
vires was attached with subordinate legislation---To strike down such
delegated legislation, the challenger was required to show that the same
impinged upon Fundamental rights, or conflicted with any Constitutional
provision, or there was lack of legislative competence on part of the
delegatee making it, or it was being beyond the scope of the parent statute.
Citation Name: 2021 PTD 731 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this

Case
SAMI PHARMACEUTICAL (PVT.) LTD. VS PROVINCE OF SINDH
delegated legislation---Scope---delegated legislation is intended to enforce
law and not to override it---Such legislation entitles delegatee to carry out
mandate of legislation, either by framing rules or regulations, which translates
and applies substantive principles of law set out in parent legislation or by
recourse to detailed administrative direction and instructions for
implementation of law---Rules which are merely subordinate legislation,
cannot override or prevail upon the provisions of parent statute---If there is
any conflict between a statute and subordinate legislation, it does not require
elaborate reasoning to firmly state that the statute prevails over subordinate
legislation and bye-law, if not in conformity with the statute in order to give
effect to the statutory provision the Rule or bye-law has to be ignored---
Statutory provision has precedence and must be complied with---Rule which
comes in conflict with main enactment has to give way to the provisions of
the Act---Rules are meant only for the purpose of carrying out the provisions
of the Act and they cannot take away what was confirmed by the Act or
whittle down its effect.

Case
DEWAN MOTORS (PVT.) LTD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary
Ministry of Finance
Ss.18(3) [as inserted by Finance Act (XXVII of 2017)] & 221-A (2) [as inserted
by Finance Act (XXVII of 2018)]---Notification SRO No.1035(I)/2017 dated 16-
10-2017---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.98---delegated legislation---Powers of
Parliament, extent of---Vires of amendment---Past and closed transaction---
Petitioners were importers who were aggrieved of imposing and collection of
Regulatory Duty through Notification SRO No.1035(I)/2017 dated 16-10-
2017---Division Bench of High Court had earlier declared the amendment
made in S.18(3) of Customs Act, 1969, ultra vires the Constitution--- Appeal
filed before Supreme Court was withdrawn by the authorities on the basis of
new amendment inserted in S.221-A(2) of Customs Act 1969, vide Finance
Act, 2018---Plea raised by petitioners was that regulatory duty imposed
pursuant to notification SRO No.1035(I)/2017, dated 16-10-2017 could not be
validated through subsequent amendment---Validity---Through amendment
in question while inserting subsection (2) of S.221-A of Customs Act, 1969, an
attempt was made to render judgment of Division Bench of High Court in
earlier case as well as earlier judgment passed of Supreme Court as redundant
and of no legal effect--- Amendment in question also intended to validate
amendment in S.18 (3) of Customs Act, 1969, vide Finance Act, 2017 and
imposing of Regulatory Duty through notification SRO No.1035(I)/2017, dated
16-10-2017, by giving retrospective effect i.e. from the date of
commencement of Finance Act, 2017 till the date of commencement of
Finance Act, 2018---Unfettered powers were not delegated under Art.98 of
the Constitution to Parliament to delegate taxing powers to any person or
authority other than Federal Government, however only to the extent of
permissible delegated legislation---Imposing of Regulatory Duty was a species
of delegated legislation, therefore, it could only be a function of Federal
Government i.e. Federal Cabinet comprising of Prime Minister and other
Federal Ministers---High Court declared that S.221-A(2) of Customs Act, 1969,
as added vide Finance Act, 2018 was ultra vires the Constitution, as through
amendment in question Legislature attempted to validate Constitutional
defect while making amendment in S.18(3) of Customs Act, 1969 and issuance
of notification SRO No.1035(I)/2017, dated 16-10-2017, through Finance Act,
2017, without making required Constitutional amendment---High Court
directed that Regulatory Duty charged and collected pursuant to amendment
in S.18(3) of Customs Act, 1969, and issuance of notification SRO
No.1035(I)/2017, dated 16-10-2017, through Finance Act, 2017 had already
been declared by Division Bench of High Court in an earlier judgment as illegal
and unconstitutional in the light of judgment of Supreme Court, therefore, in
absence of any Constitutional amendment, the same could not be validated
through subsequent amendment in law, while giving retrospective effect in
respect of past and closed transaction, therefore, no Regulatory Duty could be
charged, collected or recovered for the period starting from the date of
commencement of Finance Act, 2017 till the date of commencement of
Finance Act, 2018--- Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Citation Name: 2021 PLD 144 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case

METROPOLITAN CORPORATION, ISLAMABAD VS CHAIRMAN C.D.A. (CAPITAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY), ISLAMABAD
Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---High Court can
exercise its Constitutional jurisdiction in terms of Art.199 of the Constitution
to examine any act, notification, Act of Parliament for delegated legislation
including notification, which violated any provision of the Constitution
including fundamental rights and the same can be struck down as no
unfettered powers / discretion are available to authorities, which can be
applied in discriminatory manner.
Citation Name: 2020 PLD 1 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

JURISTS FOUNDATION through Chairman VS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT through
Secretary, Ministry of Defence
delegated legislation---Rules and Regulations---Delegatee must have
legislative guidelines to formulate Rules and Regulations, and such guidelines,
contours or boundaries must come from the Legislature (Parliament) itself---
Legislature could confer upon any person or body the power to make
subordinate/delegated legislation (Rules, Regulations or byelaws, etc.) in
order to give effect to the law enacted by it yet it must perform itself the
essential legislative function, i.e. to exercise its own judgment on vital matters
of policy and enact the general principles providing guidance for making the
delegated legislation.

JURISTS FOUNDATION through Chairman VS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT through
Secretary, Ministry of Defence
S. 176A---Army Regulations (Rules), 1998---Power to make Regulations---
Section 176A of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, vires of---In order to provide a
legal cover to the Army Regulations (Rules), S.176A was inserted in the
Pakistan Army Act, 1952, which empowered the Federal Government to make
Regulations---Army Regulations (Rules) once brought within the statutory fold
must flow from the Pakistan Army Act, 1952---Regulations which did not meet
such requirement would be ultra vires the said Act---Scope of the Pakistan
Army Act, 1952 or the vires of the Army Regulations (Rules) could not be
determined by the words inserted in S.176A like governance, command,
discipline, recruitment, terms and conditions of service, rank, precedence and
administration of the Pakistan Army---Said words were mere words when
there was no essential or core legislation on these subjects---Section 176-A
after its insertion provided a shortcut and authorized the Federal Government
to regulate areas like governance, command, discipline, recruitment, terms
and conditions of service, rank, precedence and administration of the
Pakistan Army through the Army Regulations (Rules)---Power of the
Parliament under the Constitution could not be delegated to the Federal
Government without the Parliament performing the basic essential legislative
function, i.e. providing policy guidelines on these areas---Through S.176A, the
Parliament appeared to have divested itself of the essential legislative
function which amounted to excessive delegation, as neither said section nor
any other section of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 provided the essential
legislative policy guidelines for making the delegated legislation, viz. the
Regulations, on the subjects mentioned therein---Army Regulations (Rules)
would be rendered ultra vires if they did not draw their power from the
parent Act, i.e. the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 and would suffer from excessive
delegation if they drew their strength only from S.176A of the Act---Army
Regulations (Rules) appeared to be without any legal cover and fell outside
the scope of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952---Said Regulations had to be fully
examined in the light of said principles---Supreme Court observed that it was
for the Federal Government to bring about appropriate legislation to remove
such defects so that the Army Regulations (Rules) had a proper legal cover
and were fully enforceable under the law.

Case
JAMEEL SWEETS VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Ss.40C, 3(9A), 23, 26 & 50---Sales Tax Rules, 2006, Rr. 150ZA, 150ZB, 150ZC,
150ZD & 150ZE---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---SRO No. 1360(I)/2018
dated 12.11.2018---SRO No.1203(I)/2019 dated 10.10.2019---Sales Tax---
Monitoring or tracking of certain registered persons by electronic or other
means---Point-of-sale real time monitoring of transactions of retailers---Power
of Department to frame / amend Sales Tax Rules, 2006---Petitioners /
taxpayers impugned issuance of SRO No. 1360(1)/2018 dated 12.11.2018 and
SRO No.1203(I)/2019 dated 10.10.2019 which required installation of Point of
Sale at petitioner's retail premises for declaration of real time sales, on
grounds, inter alia, that the same went beyond scope of statutory mandate
and were unreasonable---Validity---Monitoring system put in place by
Department through impugned SRO's was reasonably proportionate to
pursuit of the purpose sought by Ss. 3(9A) & 40 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Said
SROs exclusively dealt with class of subjects referred to in Ss. 3(9A) & 40C of
Sales Tax Act, 1990 and embraced policy considerations contained therein
and said SROs met minimum standard of rational connection to statutory
purpose---Sections 3(9A) & 40C of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 granted large
discretion to Department to adopt the Rules, and S. 50 of said Act also
stipulated that Department may prescribe use of computerized system for
carrying out the purposes of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Requirements of impugned
SROs did not violate provisions of Ss. 23 & 26 of the Act and obligations cast
upon petitioners under said SROs could co-exist with requirements of said
sections----Said SROs, being delegated legislation, could not be invalidated on
ground of unreasonableness, and even otherwise, same could not be termed
as irrational and unreasonable---Integration of Point of Sale of petitioners
with computerized system did not work to their disadvantage when they were
under a lawful duty to faithfully report their sales in monthly tax returns---
High Court observed that impugned SROs were validly enacted by
Department and satisfied their statutory mandate and did not offend any
Fundamental Rights of petitioners / taxpayers---Constitutional petition was
dismissed, in circumstances.

Case
Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Judicial review of
delegated / subordinate legislation---Scrutiny of the Constitutionality of
legislation by High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution---Scope---
delegated legislation beyond powers conferred by parent statute---Principles
of judicial review of such legislation---Scope---To determine vires of delegated
legislation, High Court had to examine whether such delegated Legislation
was beyond power granted by the enabling Legislation; and whether process
for formulating such delegated Legislation / Rules prescribed by parent
statute was followed, and whether such delegated Legislation consistent with
objective of parent statute.

Case
delegated legislation---Rules / regulations framed under a statute---Delegated
legislation---Nature and object of such legislation---Construction of delegated
legislation---Invalidity of delegated legislation---Scope----Provisions of a
statute, if they dealt with a subject matter in considerable detail, then scope
of delegated legislation correspondingly became limited and if a statute
generally dealt with the subject matter, then scope of delegated legislation
made under it shall become greater and it was assumed that legislature
consciously decided to leave details to be filled out by delegated legislation---
Theory underlying principle of delegated legislation was that legislature was
only concerned with general principles whereas executive and other
authorities authorized to make delegated legislation, addressed matters of
administration---Grant of power of legislation included power to enact
incidental or ancillary legislation, which power was inherent in Constitution---
Presumption of validity existed with regard to delegated legislation and Rules
made under statutory mandate ought to be read and interpreted in broad
manner which made them consistent with parent statute---Court holding
inquiry did not indulge in assessing Policy merits of such Rules or made
assessment as to whether Rules would meet objectives set out by parent
statute and powers delegated to a Authority for framing Rules generally
signified broad discretion reserved for it to make assessment as to what
would advance purposes of parent statute and also measures as required to
advance such purposes.
Citation Name: 2020 PLC(CS) 1140 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark
this Case
ASIF NAWAZ VS CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB VACATIONAL TRAINING COUNCIL
Statutory Rules and Regulations---delegated legislation --- Determination of
nature of delegated legislation in form of Rules and Regulations --- Statutory
and non-statutory Rules and Regulations --- Scope---- Determination as to
whether Rules or Regulations were statutory or otherwise, was not solely to
be based on whether their framing required approval of Federal Government
but rather it was nature and area of efficacy of such Rules / Regulations which
determined their status --- Rules dealing with instructions for internal control
or management were to be treated as non-statutory Rules while those whose
area of efficacy was broader and / or complimentary to parent statute in
matters of crucial importance were to be treated as statutory.
Citation Name: 2020 CLC 1784 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this

Case
ZAFA PHARMACEUTICAL LABS (PVT.) LTD. VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
through the Secretary Ministry of National Health Services
Subordinate and delegated legislation---Construction---Rules could not travel
beyond scope of main Act / statute under which the same were framed and
all possible effort was to be made to read such Rules in line with intention of
the Legislature---Rule-making power could not be exercised to override
provisions of the Act / statute itself.
Citation Name: 2019 SCMR 1887 SUPREME-COURT-OF-UK Bookmark this Case

R (ON THE APPLICATION OF MILLER) VS The PRIME MINISTER
Executive--- Prerogative powers, limits of---Parliamentary accountability---
Constitutional principles---Decision outside legal limits of prerogative
powers---Justiciability of---Test---Although the courts could not decide
political questions, the fact that a legal dispute concerned the conduct of
politicians, or arose from a matter of political controversy, was not a sufficient
reason for the courts to refuse to consider it---Prime Minister's accountability
to Parliament did not in itself justify the conclusion that the courts had no
legitimate role to play---Courts had a duty to give effect to the law,
irrespective of a minister's political accountability to Parliament---Fact that a
minister was politically accountable to Parliament did not mean that he was
therefore immune from legal accountability to the courts---If the issue before
the court was justiciable, deciding it would not offend against the separation
of powers---Courts could rule on the extent of prerogative powers of the
Executive---Since a prerogative power was not constituted by any document,
determining its limits was not straightforward---Nevertheless, every
prerogative power had its limits, and it was the function of the court to
determine, when necessary, where they laid---Since the power was
recognised by the common law, and had to be compatible with common law
principles, those principles may illuminate where its boundaries laid---In
particular, the boundaries of a prerogative power relating to the operation of
Parliament were likely to be illuminated, and indeed determined, by the
fundamental principles of (UK's) Constitutional law---Prerogative power was
therefore limited by statute and the common law, including, the
constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict---Courts had
the responsibility of upholding the values and principles of the Constitution
and making them effective---Particularly it was their responsibility to
determine the legal limits of the powers conferred on each branch of
government, and to decide whether any exercise of power had transgressed
those limits---Courts could not avoid such responsibility merely on the ground
that the question raised had a political context---Limits of prerogative powers
were to be determined by reference to two principles of constitutional law;
first, that laws enacted by the Parliament were the supreme form of law in
the legal system, with which everyone, including the Government, must
comply---Time and again, the courts (in the UK) had protected Parliamentary
sovereignty from threats posed to it by the use of prerogative powers (from
the Executive), and in doing so had demonstrated that prerogative powers
were limited by the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty---Sovereignty of
Parliament would be undermined if the Executive could, through the use of
the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its legislative authority
for as long as it pleased---Second constitutional principle was that of
Parliamentary accountability, whereby, through Parliamentary questions and
committees, and scrutiny of delegated legislation, the policies of the Executive
were subjected to consideration by the representatives of the electorate, and
the executive was required to report, explain and defend its actions.
Citation Name: 2019 SCMR 282 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER INLAND
REVENUE (LEGAL) LTU, ISLAMABAD
S. 3 & First Sched.---Customs Act (IV of 1969), First Sched.---Fiscal statute---
Statutory provisions, amendment of---Section 3 and the First Schedule to the
Federal Excise Act, 2005 as well as the First Schedule to the Customs Act,
1969 were statutory provisions---Such provisions could only be amended by
an Act of Parliament---delegated legislation such as a Statutory Regulatory
Order (SRO) could not amend the same.
Citation Name: 2019 PTD 484 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER INLAND
REVENUE (LEGAL) LTU, ISLAMABAD
S. 3 & First Sched.---Customs Act (IV of 1969), First Sched.---Fiscal statute---
Statutory provisions, amendment of---Section 3 and the First Schedule to the
Federal Excise Act, 2005 as well as the First Schedule to the Customs Act,
1969 were statutory provisions---Such provisions could only be amended by
an Act of Parliament---delegated legislation such as a Statutory Regulatory
Order (SRO) could not amend the same.

Case
The COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE VS CHAUDHARY DAIRIES LTD.
Insertion of explanation in statutory instrument / delegated legislation---
Function, scope and effect---Explanations function to explain meaning and
effect of main provisions and to clear up any doubt or ambiguity in the same
and such explanation generally had retrospective application inasmuch it
sought to explain and remove doubt existing in the mind of public
functionaries as well as citizens.

Case
NESTLE PAKISTAN VS DIRECTOR PESSI
Arts. 141 & 142 ---Distribution of Legislative Powers and Legislative
functions---Delegation of legislative powers to executive---Essential Legislative
functions---Legislative policy---Principles, rationale and scope---Power of
delegation was a constituent element of Legislative policy as a whole under
Arts. 141 & 142 of the Constitution and other relative Articles---Legislature,
for making a law wholesome and pragmatic so as to promote the Principles of
Policy of the Constitution, at times adopted a generous degree of latitude and
considered it convenient and necessary not to provide complete details by
determining all factors or matters specifically for all cases and, therefore had
taken the form of delegated legislation leaving it to some authority to fill in
details or determine factors or matters in which a law shall be applied---
Legislature, however, could not strip itself of its essential functions and vest
the same with an extraneous authority---Essential legislative function must at
least consist of determination of Legislative policy and its formulation as a
binding rule of conduct---Where law passed by the Legislature, declared the
Legislative policy and lay down standard or principle which was enacted into a
rule of law, it could leave the ancillary or subsidiary task of a statute to
subordinate bodies, which must do it within the framework of the law which
made the delegation and could not go beyond such limits of the policy and
standard laid down in the law---Under the Constitution, the Legislature has
plenary powers within its allotted field and there could be no abdication of
Legislative function or authority by complete effacement, or even partially in
respect of particular topic or matter entrusted by the Constitution to the
Legislature---Power to make subsidiary or ancillary legislation may, however,
be entrusted by Legislature to another body of its choice, provided there was
enunciation of policy, principles or standards either expressly or by
implication for the guidance of the delegate in that behalf---Entrustment of
power without guidance amounted to excessive delegation of legislative
authority.

Case
AHMAD MEHMOOD VS GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary
legislation---Scope---Rules and regulations were subordinate and delegated
legislation deriving authority and legal cover from provisions of parent statute
and power to make subordinate legislation/rules/regulations was derived
from enabling statute and such delegatee was not authorized to make a
provision beyond the policy of the statute---Delegated legislation could not
override the statute either by exceeding authority or by making provisions
inconsistent with parent statute---General power to make rules or regulations
for carrying out or giving effect to the statute was strictly ancillary in nature
and could not enable an authority on whom the power was conferred to
extend the scope of general operation of the statute---Rule-making authority
cannot widen the purpose of statute or add new and different means of
carrying them out or to depart from or vary its terms---Rules/ regulations
which the rule-making authority has power to make, was liable to be declared
invalid if powers entrusted for one purpose were deliberately used with
design of achieving another; or if it shows on its face a misconstruction of
enabling law or a failure to comply with conditions prescribed under the
parent statute for the exercise of the powers or if it was not capable of being
related to any purpose mentioned in the parent statute---Legislature must
retain in its own hands the essential Legislative functions which consist of
declaring Legislative policy and laying down the standard which was to be
enacted into a rule of law, and what could be delegated was the task of
subordinate legislation---Rules/regulations continue to be rules subordinate
to the parent statute, and though for certain purposes, including the purpose
of construction, they were to be treated as if contained in the statute, their
true nature as subordinate legislation was not lost---Rule of interpretation
was that if subordinate legislation was directly repugnant to general purpose
of the statute which authorized it, or was repugnant to any well-established
principle of statute, it was either ultra vires altogether, or must, if possible, be
so interpreted as not to create an anomaly---Reconciliation, if was found to be
impossible between the provision of statute and the rules/regulations made
thereunder; then such rules/regulations shall be held to be ultra vires the
parent statute.

Case
Messrs ASIO AFRICAN CO. (PVT.) LTD. VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
legislation---Scope---No subordinate legislation could take away powers
granted by a substantive legislation, or could impose conditions if the same
were not envisaged by the latter.
Citation Name: 2019 MLD 1861 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD ZAKIR BANDHANI VS MUHAMMAD AMIR BANDHANI
Rules made under statute---Status---Principle---Rules have status of
subordinate and delegated legislation, deriving authority and legal cover from
provisions of statute under which they were framed---Rules have same force
as provisions of statute under which they are framed and have to be treated
as part of parent Act.
Citation Name: 2018 PTD 1729 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case

AGRO PACK VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
1975 PCr.LJ 105, 1986 CLC 507, 2002 YLR 3433, 2009 PLC (C.S.) 415, PLD 2010
SC 483,
S.4---Notification SRO No.190 (I) 2002 dated 2-4-2002---Refund of sales tax---
Zero rating, principle of---Applicability---Question was with regard to supply of
goods manufactured by petitioner to Afghanistan and applicability of
Notification SRO No.190(I)/2002, dated 2-4-2002---Provision of S.4 of Sales
Tax Act, 1990, was the parent law and provided for Zero Rate of sales tax on
goods exported from Pakistan---Such concession of Zero Rate of sales tax was
not to be extended in respect of supply of goods to a country notified by
Federal Government through delegated legislation---Parent law mandated
Federal Government to only specify a country through notification to which
supply of goods were not to be rendered concession of Zero Rate of sales
tax---Mandate for Federal Government was to specify country and not any
goods or class of goods---Any restriction on concession or facility provided in
parent Act through subordinate Legislation had to be viewed strictly and not
liberally---Federal Government exceeded its powers in issuance of Notification
SRO No.190(I)/2002, dated 2-4-2002, by excluding selected supply of goods,
including those manufactured by companies, such as petitioner having
Bonded Licenses for export to Afghanistan---Constitutional petition was
dismissed in circumstances.

BHUTTO KHAN VS INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA,
PESHAWAR
S. 19---Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Home and Tribal Affairs
Department Circular No.SO(AR)/HD/1-8/NCP/2014/KC, dated 3-10-2014---
Non-customs paid vehicle---Release of such vehicle on Superdari---Petitioners
were owners of vehicles which were brought into Pakistan without payment
of customs duty and the same were seized by authorities---Validity---
Notification regarding exemption of any goods imported into Pakistan could
only be issued by the Federal Government; there were certain other
provisions of Customs Act, 1969, which had empowered Central Board of
Revenue also to issue certain notifications in matters pertaining to delegated
legislation and exemptions while scope and extent thereof under S.19 of
Customs Act, 1969, were exclusively within the competence of Federal
Government---Vehicles in question were neither brought into settled area in
accordance with the provisions contained in Customs Act, 1969, nor customs
duty nor any duties and taxes leviable thereon were paid by its importers---
Neither High Court nor Sessions Judges or Judicial Magistrates had power to
release such vehicles on Superdari---Such vehicles were subject to
departmental adjudication as envisaged under Customs Act, 1969---
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Case
MUHAMMAD FAHAD MALIK VS PAKISTAN MEDICAL AND DENTAL COUNCIL
1992 SCMR 1617, 1992 SCMR 602, 1993 SCMR 1589, 1995 SCMR 1593, 1997
SCMR 641, 2001 SCMR 1161, 2003 SCMR 370, 2004 SCMR 1570, 2005 SCMR
186, 2009 MLD 684, 2011 SCMR 1254, 2012 CLC 1071, PLD 1972 Lah. 316, PLD
1994 SC 738, PLD 1995 SC 66, PLD 1998 SC 1445, PLD 1998 SC 161, PLD 2000
SC 26, PLD 2003 SC 724, PLD 2012 SC 106, PLD 2016 SC 808, PLD 2017 Lah.
289, PLD 2017 Lahore 289,
Rules and Regulations---Nature and exercise of the power to frame
regulations/rules under a parent statute---Scope---Power to make rules being
delegated legislation was simply for advancement of basic objective of the law
and no more---Parliament delegated its Legislative function to regulators
where it may not have the required expertise on technical matters or it may
be unable to respond to change in a timely manner or to a specific need and
therefore it gave flexibility in the application of the law by delegating its
power to legislate---Statutory Rules and Regulations could enlarge the scope
of the section of the statute under which they had been framed and a
statutory authority must make Regulations/Rules in order to effectuate
intention of the Legislature within the limits of the mandate given to such an
authority---Rules framed, if inconsistent with the provisions of the statute and
if the same defeated intention of the Legislature, would become invalid.

Case
INDEPENDENT MEDIA CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. VS PROVINCE OF SINDH
through Chief Secretary Sindh
delegated legislation---Tax could not be levied automatically through a
delegated legislation until and unless it was leviable under the charging
provision of the fiscal statute.
Citation Name: 2018 PLD 603 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this

Case
MIR SHABBIR ALI KHAN BIJARINI VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
2003 SCMR 370, 2005 SCMR 186, 2013 SCMR 642, 2014 CLC 335, PLD 2014 SC
389,
Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Judicial review of
delegated/subordinate legislation/Rules---Scrutiny of Constitutionality of such
legislation by the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution---Principles---
delegated legislation/Rules beyond powers conferred by parent statute---
Delegated/subordinate legislation enacted with mala fide, ulterior motives or
in an arbitrary manner---Principles of judicial review of such legislation,
enumerated.
Citation Name: 2018 YLR 1785 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case

SUNBIZ PRIVATE LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary
Ministry of Information
Subordinate and delegated legislation---Scope--- Rules and regulations are
subordinate and delegated legislation deriving authority and legal cover from
the provisions of parent statute---Rules framed under statute cannot override
provision of the statute under which they were framed and on which their
very existence was dependent---Power to make subordinate
legislation/rules/regulations is derived from enabling statute and the
delegatee on whom such power is conferred has to act within the limits of
authority conferred by the statute---Rules cannot be made to supplant the
provisions of enabling statute but to supplement the same---Delegatee is not
authorized to make a provision beyond the policy of the statute---Delegatee
cannot override the statute either by exceeding the authority or by making
provisions inconsistent with the statute---Rules made under a statute are
treated for the purpose of construction as if they were in the enabling statute
and are to be of the same effect as if contained in the statute--- Rules are to
be consistent with the provisions of the statute and if a rule goes beyond
what the statute contemplates, the rule must yield to the statute--- General
power to make rules or regulations for carrying out or giving effect to the
statue is strictly ancillary in nature and cannot enable the authority on whom
the power is conferred to extend the scope of general operation of the
statute--- Rule making authority cannot widen the purpose of statute or to
add new and different means to carrying them out or to depart from or vary
its terms.
Citation Name: 2018 YLR 222 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case

MOAZZAM HABIB VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Art. 199---Judicial review---Scope---High Court has jurisdiction under Art. 199
of the Constitution to examine validity of any Act of Parliament or delegated
legislation including notifications---If any law, act or notification violates any
provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, same can be
struck down---Law must not be declared unconstitutional unless statute is
placed next to the Constitution and no way can be found in reconciling the
two there is presumption in favour of constitutionality---If there are two
interpretations, one in favour of constitutionality must be adopted.
Citation Name: 2018 PLC(CS) 907 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case

SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN VS Dr.
MUHAMMAD ARIF
Ss. 9 & 25---Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules,
1973, Rr.7, 8 & 8-A---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A---Law Reforms
Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3---Civil service---Promotion---Recommendations of
Central Selection Board---Supersession/deferment---Objective criteria for
promotion---Office memorandum---Nature---Audi alteram partem, principle
of----Applicability---Opinion of members of Central Selection Board---Scope---
Adverse remarks in ACR, communication of---Discretionary power---
Employees assailed, under constitutional jurisdiction of High Court their
supersession which was accepted and Establishment Division was directed to
reframe the formula by taking away the overriding effect of marks to be
awarded by the Central Selection Board and categorization into A, B & C---
Single Judge of High Court directed that assessment should be made on the
basis of entire performance and in case any tangible material questioning the
integrity of civil servant was available then he might be confronted with the
same and thereafter an opinion with regard to deferment or supersession
should be made but not on the basis of "hypothesis and reputation in air"---
Validity---Office memorandum could not be considered as 'rules' framed
under S.25 of Civil Servants Act, 1973---Office memorandum setting out the
promotion policy or guidelines for Departmental Promotion Committee could
not be termed as primary or delegated legislation---Office memorandum was
not clear as to how many out of five marks were to be attributed to the
officer's PER, how many to his TER and how many to the 'Opinion of the
Board'---Said memorandum was vague and ambiguous and had given
unfettered and unbridled discretion to the Central Selection Board---Nothing
was on record as to how an officer was assessed by the Central Selection
Board with regard to his integrity---Reasons made by the Central Selection
Board did not refer any material which caused to conclude that officer lacked
honesty---Officer against whom there was nothing adverse in his PER and TER
could not without sufficient tangible and convincing material be relegated by
the Central Selection Board by giving him less than 3 marks for his integrity---
If any of the members of the Central Selection Board disagreed with the
positive remarks about integrity of an officer in his annual confidential report
then they must specifically record as to why they were not satisfied with the
remarks in such reports with specific reference to the material which
contradicted the said remarks in the reports---Adverse opinion formed by the
members of Central Selection Board had to be based on tangible material---
Minutes of meeting and recommendations of Central Selection Board to defer
or supersede an officer must make reference to the material which caused
them to become doubtful with regard to integrity of such officer---If such
material had not at any stage been disclosed to the officer then he must first
be confronted with the same---If officer concerned was not confronted with
such material/information then it would be a violation of principles of natural
justice i.e. audi alteram partem---Violation of said principle would be enough
to vitiate even the most solemn proceedings---Audi alteram partem had to be
applied in all judicial and non-judicial proceedings notwithstanding that a
right of hearing had not been expressly provided by the statute governing the
proceedings---Central Selection Board was not to rely upon hearsay, rumors,
generalizations or gossip with regard to an officer under consideration for
promotion---Member of Central Selection Board could not tell the others that
a particular officer was known to him and his integrity or reputation was such
that he did not deserve promotion---Material/ information on the basis of
which a member of Central Selection Board formed an adverse opinion should
be placed before all the other members of the Selection Board so that they
could form their respective opinion about integrity or reputation of such an
officer---If no such material was made available then officer in question could
not be penalized by denying him a recommendation for promotion---If such
material/information was available then officer in question must be called
and confronted with it before an opinion was formed by the members of said
Selection Board---Adverse report in ACR could not be acted upon to deny
promotion unless it was communicated to the officer concerned so that he
had an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the
circumstances leading to such report---Rush of work could not be an excuse of
not giving a meaningful and purposeful attention to each case---If a junior
officer was to be promoted and the senior deferred, then a comparative
analysis must be carried out between the two or with each of the officer over
which a junior was being promoted---Reasons should also be given and
communicated to the officer for such deferment/supersession and same
should be supported by tangible materials---Such reasons must contain the
attributes which were possessed by a junior promoted officer and which the
senior deferred or superseded officer were bereft of---Central Selection Board
must exercise discretion with open plans, open policy statements, open rules,
open findings, open reasons, open precedent and fair and informal
procedures---Civil servant could only be deferred/superseded for the reasons
set out in the Promotion Policy/Guidelines for Departmental Promotion
Committee---If an officer was not promoted on account of some deficiency in
his work then he would be entitled to know the detail as to what exactly that
deficiency was and which aspect of his work he needed to improve upon---
Simply deferring an officer by telling him that his work performance needed
to be watched, was not just vague, ambiguous, imprecise and nebulous but
unacceptable in the service jurisprudence---Judgment of Single Judge of High
Court to the extent of declaring that the formula of awarding of 15 marks at
the disposal of Central Selection Board with overriding effect of 5 marks was
upheld---Constitutional petitions to the extent of challenging the
recommendations of Central Selection Board were dismissed being not
maintainable---Impugned judgment to the extent of striking down the office
memorandum was set aside---Entire process for deferment/ supersession was
declared unlawful---Government was directed to reframe formula by taking
away the overriding effect of five marks to be awarded by the Central
Selection Board and place the cases of officers for promotion in the next
meeting of Central Selection Board---Intra-court appeals were disposed of
accordingly.

Ms. SHAGUFTA HASHMAT VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary
Cabinet Division
S. 5---Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, Pt.
III--- Contract employees---Regularization in service---Policy issued by the
Federal Government to regularize contract employees (“Regularization
policy”)---Scope---Regularization policy could not be inconsistent with primary
legislation, such as the Civil Servants Act, 1973---Federal Government was not
empowered to bypass or render statutory provisions redundant by way of a
regularization policy---Likewise, a delegated legislation, such as the Civil
Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 would prevail to
the extent of conflict with a regularization policy---Policy of the Federal
Government had to be interpreted in conformity with the statutory provisions
or delegated legislation made there under.

Ms. SHAGUFTA HASHMAT VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary
Cabinet Division
S. 5---Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, Pt.
III--- Contract employees---Regularization in service---Policy issued by the
Federal Government to regularize contract employees (Regularization
policy)---Scope---Regularization policy could not be inconsistent with primary
legislation, such as the Civil Servants Act, 1973---Federal Government was not
empowered to bypass or render statutory provisions redundant by way of a
regularization policy---Likewise, a delegated legislation, such as the Civil
Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 would prevail to
the extent of conflict with a regularization policy---Policy of the Federal
Government had to be interpreted in conformity with the statutory provisions
or delegated legislation made there under.
Citation Name: 2017 SCMR 1070 SUPREME-COURT-OF-CANADA Bookmark

this Case
SIDNEY GREEN VS THE LAW SOCIETY OF MANITOBA
Legal Practitioner--TERM , Legislative mandate--Term ,
Law Society (Bar Council)---Legislative mandate---Scope---Law society could
only enact rules that were consistent with the purposes, scope and objectives
of its enabling statute, and its authority to do so must be exercised in a
reasonable manner---Fact that deference was owed did not mean that a law
society had carte blanche; there were several grounds for finding delegated
legislation to be unreasonable, such as where it was manifestly unjust.

Case
Mst. JAMEELA MANZOOR VS RAJA ZAFAR MEHMOOD
2004 SCMR 1219, 2005 SCMR 512, 2006 CLC 1189, 2013 CLC 370, PLD 2011
Lah. 355, PLD 2013 Pesh. 1,
R. 13---Behbood Savings Certificates, Rules, 2003, R. 17---Special Savings
Certificates Rules 1990, R. 16---Investment certificates---Oral gift---Proof---
Deceased died issueless leaving behind his widow, one brother and four
sisters---Widow claimed that her deceased husband in his life time had gifted
the entire amount of his investments/saving certificates in her favour, as such
she was exclusively entitled to receive these amounts---Validity---Deceased
had not conveyed any written instructions to the bank staff to the effect that
except for his wife, no other legal heir would have any right in respect of
amounts lying in his bank accounts---During cross-examination the widow
showed her lack of knowledge about the fact that till death of her husband,
the assets remained in his name---Widow conceded that no deed was written
in her favour by her deceased husband in respect of his assets---No other
witness has come forward to support factum of gift of assets in favour of
widow---No date, time or place of such oral gift or name of the witnesses in
whose presence the gift was made was given---Widow had not taken the
stance that investment certificates, etc. were delivered to her, at the time of
gift---Necessary ingredients of a valid gift were missing in the present case---
Moreover application for one of the Regular Income Certificates showed that
the deceased had mentioned on it name of her widow and one his sisters as
nominees to the extent of 1/2 share each and such fact alone belied the claim
of widow that deceased intended that all these amounts be exclusively shared
by her---Had the deceased intended to gift away all his investments to his
widow, it was quite easy for him to transfer such amounts in her account or
execute a gift deed or will deed in her favour---Deceased being an advocate,
fully knew the difference between nomination and gift and deliberately
mentioned name of his wife in investment certificates as nominee alone---
Widow had failed to establish that she was entitled to receive her deceased
husband's assets/investments to the exclusion of other legal heirs---High
Court observed that R.17 of Behbood Savings Certificates Rules, 2003 and
R.13 of Defence Saving Certificates Rules,1966 pertaining to nomination by
purchaser of these certificates being a subordinate delegated legislation could
not be given preference /overriding effect in the matter of inheritance of
movable assets /debts of a deceased person and Islamic law would be
applicable and have precedence over said Rules---Appeal was disposed of
accordingly.

Case
INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS CORPORATION (PVT) LTD VS FEDERATION OF
PAKISTAN
Art. 199---Judicial Review of administrative actions---Judicial review of
delegated legislation/enactment of secondary legislation---Courts had the
authority to review subordinate legislation if it was satisfied that in making it,
the delegatee acted outwith the legislative powers conferred upon it by
Legislature.

Case
INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS CORPORATION (PVT) LTD VS FEDERATION OF
PAKISTAN
Ss. 23, 39 & 2(1)---Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Rules,
2009, Rr. 13(3) & 13(4)---Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority
(Eligibility Criteria and Bidding Procedure for Direct to Home (DTH)
Distribution Service Licensing) Regulations, 2016, Reglns. 2.11 & 3.23---
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Vires of Rr.13(3) & 13(4), Pakistan
Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Rules, 2009 and Reglns. 2.11 & 2.23 of
Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Eligibility, Criteria and
Bidding Procedure for Direct to Home (DTH) Distribution Service Licensing)
Regulations, 2016---Media ownership concentration and exclusion of
monopolies---Legislative intent, nature and scope of S. 23 of the Pakistan
Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002---Rules/delegated
legislation cannot go beyond the statute---Role of PEMRA as a frontline
regulator---Scope---Petitioner challenged the legality of Rr.13(3) & 13(4) of
the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Rules, 2009 and Reglns.
2.11 & 3.23 of the PEMRA (Eligibility Criteria and Bidding Procedure for Direct
to Home (DTH) Distribution Service Licensing) Regulations, 2016; on the
ground, inter alia, that the same went beyond the scope of S. 23 read with S.
39 of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002---
Validity---Impugned Rules and Regulations ousted broadcast media licence
owners from owning, controlling or operating distribution service licence and
vice versa, meaning thereby that it totally prohibited "vertical integration"---
Scope of S.23(2) of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority
Ordinance, 2002 was to provide PEMRA with its regulatory objectives so that
it could regulate the electronic media and achieve its stated purpose which
was diversity and plurality in content---To accomplish said stated purpose,
maximum participation of stakeholders was required for grant of a licence---
Section 23 of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance,
2002, did not envision any prohibition on broadcast media operating
distribution services or vice versa but to the contrary it required all media
enterprises to compete in the media market with each other and with new
media entities---Intent of S.23(2) of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory
Authority Ordinance, 2002 was for PEMRA to ensure that ownership
conglomerates were not formed given that the regulatory objective was to
prevent undue concentration of media ownership in a given market---Use of
the word "and" in S.23(2) of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory
Authority Ordinance, 2002 separated two distinct regulatory objectives being
"fair competition and prevention of undue concentration"; and whether the
said word "and" was read disjunctively or conjunctively, it would not change
the intent of the law--- Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority
(PEMRA) was required to regulate vertical integration of all media enterprises
so that they did not form concentrated ownership and under S.23(2) of the
Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002; Legislature
delegated the authority to PEMRA to define the circumstances, which could
cause such undue concentration in any market and PEMRA could set out a
regulatory environment within which the Legislature's intent was
effectuated---Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, in the present
case, defined such circumstances to mean a total restriction on vertical
integration between broadcast media and distribution services which
restriction was based on the presumption that any vertical integration
between broadcast media and distribution services would result in undue
concentration of ownership---Section 23(2) of the Pakistan Electronic Media
Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 did not mandate such an ouster or
restriction and required ownership concentration to be regulated so that it
did not become undue, meaning thereby that some element of concentration
was permissible---Impugned Rules and Regulations were enacted by PEMRA
without setting any standards or thresholds on the basis of which it could
measure, monitor or control media ownership---Effect of the impugned Rules
and Regulations was that by restricting two specific media enterprises from
vertically integrating and allowing other media enterprises to vertically
integrate, undue concentration of media ownership was left unregulated
because it was seen only in the context of integration between broadcast
media and distribution services and not in the context of the relevant market,
which was illogical and is not in furtherance of the objectives or purpose of
the law---High Court observed that S.23(2) of the Pakistan Electronic Media
Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 did not leave it open to PEMRA to set
out a new regulatory authority but instead required it to work within the
confines of the prescribed objectives and in the present case, PEMRA
abdicated from its functions as a regulator and instead transgressed into the
domain of the Legislature, which is not permissible---High Court further
observed that if the intent of the law was to prohibit vertical integration it
would not have required PEMRA to define the circumstances, which created
undue concentration of ownership and the Legislature would have prescribed
the restriction in the stated section---High Court held that Rr.13(3) & 13(4) of
the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Rules, 2009 and Reglns.
2.11 & 3.23 of the PEMRA (Eligibility Criteria and Bidding Procedure for Direct
to Home (DTH) Distribution Service Licensing) Regulations, 2016 were enacted
without lawful authority and were struck down---Constitutional petition was
allowed, accordingly.

Case
CONTINENTAL BISCUITS LTD. VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary
Defence, Ministry of Defence, Islamabad
1994 SCMR 1393, 1999 SCMR 1402, 2013 SCMR 1511,
Delegated Legislation--TERM , Interpretation of Statutes--TERM ,
delegated legislation---Levy of fee---Scope---When a parent statute (the
governing law) does not empower levy of fee, then levy of such fee through
delegated legislation in shape of by-laws is not permissible.

Case
NEW ALLIED ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. VS FEDERATION OF
PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division
2013 PTD 1491,
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--77 ,
Constitutional petition--TERM , Delegated Legislation--TERM , Sales Tax Act
1990--3 , Sales Tax Act 1990--7-A , Sales Tax Act 1990--71 , Sales Tax Special
Procedure Rules 2007--RULES , Special procedure--Term ,
Arts. 77 & 199----Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 3, 7-A & 71---Sales Tax Special
Procedure Rules (2007), R. 58-B---Constitutional petition---Tax to be levied by
law only---Scope---Scope of tax---Levy and collection of tax on specified goods
on value addition---Special procedure---delegated legislation---Powers of
Executive---Scope---Payment of sales tax on account of minimum value
addition---Levy of tax plays pivotal role in the society, but since it puts
pecuniary burden on person, its imposition is not permissible unless
warranted by law---Levying tax is essentially the domain of Parliament as
mandated by Art. 77 of the Constitution---Article 77 of the Constitution
provides in clear terms that tax can be imposed and collected either by or
under authority of the Act of Parliament, and nowhere it is provided that
Executive, on its own, can introduce some new tax on basis of rules in
derogation to what the main statute prescribes---Purpose of delegating
powers to Executive to frame rules, devise regulations and issue notifications
and guidelines is only to facilitate implementation of laws to the best of their
object and mandate---Executive, assuming such powers, is not permitted to
frame rules or issue notification that are independent of the scheme of parent
law---Any such attempt would render the rules, regulations, etc. nullity in eyes
of law.
Citation Name: 2017 YLR 2155 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this

Case
CONTINENTAL BISCUITS LTD. VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary
Defence, Ministry of Defence, Islamabad
delegated legislation---Levy of fee---Scope---When a parent statute (the
governing law) does not empower levy of fee, then levy of such fee through
delegated legislation in shape of by-laws is not permissible.
Citation Name: 2017 PLC(CS)N 66 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case

SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN VS Dr.
MUHAMMAD ARIF
Ss. 9 & 25---Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules,
1973, Rr.7, 8 & 8-A---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A---Law Reforms
Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3---Civil service---Promotion---Recommendations of
Central Selection Board---Supersession/deferment---Objective criteria for
promotion---Office memorandum---Nature---Audi alteram partem, principle
of----Applicability---Opinion of members of Central Selection Board---Scope---
Adverse remarks in ACR, communication of---Discretionary power---
Employees assailed, under constitutional jurisdiction of High Court their
supersession which was accepted and Establishment Division was directed to
reframe the formula by taking away the overriding effect of marks to be
awarded by the Central Selection Board and categorization into A, B & C---
Single Judge of High Court directed that assessment should be made on the
basis of entire performance and in case any tangible material questioning the
integrity of civil servant was available then he might be confronted with the
same and thereafter an opinion with regard to deferment or supersession
should be made but not on the basis of "hypothesis and reputation in air"---
Validity---Office memorandum could not be considered as 'rules' framed
under S.25 of Civil Servants Act, 1973-- Office memorandum setting out the
promotion policy or guidelines for Departmental Promotion Committee could
not be termed as primary or delegated legislation---Office memorandum was
not clear as to how many out of five marks were to be attributed to the
officer's PER, how many to his TER and how many to the 'Opinion of the
Board'---Said memorandum was vague and ambiguous and had given
unfettered and unbridled discretion to the Central Selection Board---Nothing
was on record as to how an officer was assessed by the Central Selection
Board with regard to his integrity---Reasons made by the Central Selection
Board did not refer any material which caused to conclude that officer lacked
honesty---Officer against whom there was nothing adverse in his PER and TER
could not without sufficient tangible and convincing material be relegated by
the Central Selection Board by giving him less than 3 marks for his integrity---
If any of the members of the Central Selection Board disagreed with the
positive remarks about integrity of an officer in his annual confidential report
then they must specifically record as to why they were not satisfied with the
remarks in such reports with specific reference to the material which
contradicted the said remarks in the reports---Adverse opinion formed by the
members of Central Selection Board had to be based on tangible material---
Minutes of meeting and recommendations of Central Selection Board to defer
or supersede an officer must make reference to the material which caused
them to become doubtful with regard to integrity of such officer---If such
material had not at any stage been disclosed to the officer then he must first
be confronted with the same---If officer concerned was not confronted with
such material/information then it would be a violation of principles of natural
justice i.e. audi alteram partem---Violation of said principle would be enough
to vitiate even the most solemn proceedings---Audi alteram partem had to be
applied in all judicial and non-judicial proceedings notwithstanding that a
right of hearing had not been expressly provided by the statute governing the
proceedings---Central Selection Board was not to rely upon hearsay, rumors,
generalizations or gossip with regard to an officer under consideration for
promotion---Member of Central Selection Board could not tell the others that
a particular officer was known to him and his integrity or reputation was such
that he did not deserve promotion---Material/ information on the basis of
which a member of Central Selection Board formed an adverse opinion should
be placed before all the other members of the Selection Board so that they
could form their respective opinion about integrity or reputation of such an
officer---If no such material was made available then officer in question could
not be penalized by denying him a recommendation for promotion---If such
material/information was available then officer in question must be called
and confronted with it before an opinion was formed by the members of said
Selection Board---Adverse report in ACR could not be acted upon to deny
promotion unless it was communicated to the officer concerned so that he
had an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the
circumstances leading to such report---Rush of work could not be an excuse of
not giving a meaningful and purposeful attention to each case---If a junior
officer was to be promoted and the senior deferred, then a comparative
analysis must be carried out between the two or with each of the officer over
which a junior was being promoted---Reasons should also be given and
communicated to the officer for such deferment/supersession and same
should be supported by tangible materials---Such reasons must contain the
attributes which were possessed by a junior promoted officer and which the
senior deferred or superseded officer were bereft of---Central Selection Board
must exercise discretion with open plans, open policy statements, open rules,
open findings, open reasons, open precedent and fair and informal
procedures---Civil servant could only be deferred/superseded for the reasons
set out in the Promotion Policy/Guidelines for Departmental Promotion
Committee---If an officer was not promoted on account of some deficiency in
his work then he would be entitled to know the detail as to what exactly that
deficiency was and which aspect of his work he needed to improve upon---
Simply deferring an officer by telling him that his work performance needed
to be watched, was not just vague, ambiguous, imprecise and nebulous but
unacceptable in the service jurisprudence---Judgment of Single Judge of High
Court to the extent of declaring that the formula of awarding of 15 marks at
the disposal of Central Selection Board with overriding effect of 5 marks was
upheld---Constitutional petitions to the extent of challenging the
recommendations of Central Selection Board were dismissed being not
maintainable---Impugned judgment to the extent of striking down the office
memorandum was set aside---Entire process for deferment/ supersession was
declared unlawful---Government was directed to reframe formula by taking
away the overriding effect of five marks to be awarded by the Central
Selection Board and place the cases of officers for promotion in the next
meeting of Central Selection Board---Intra-court appeals were disposed of
accordingly.
MUSTAFA IMPEX, KARACHI VS The GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through
Secretary Finance, Islamabad
Constitutionality--Term , Sales Tax Act 1990--13 , Sales Tax Act 1990--3 , Sales
Tax Act 1990--4 , Sales Tax Act 1990--71 , Sales Tax Act 1990--8 ,
Ss. 3(2)(b), 3(6), 4(c), 8(1)(b), 13(2)(a) & 71---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 77,
90 & 98---Rules of Business, 1973, Rr.3(3), 4(2), 16 & 27---Exemption from
sales tax, withdrawal/modification of---Notifications issued on the basis of the
approval of the Secretary and the Advisor of the relevant Division---
Constitutionality---Secretary or Advisor did not have any power to make
subordinate or delegated legislation---Such power had been conferred solely
and exclusively on the Federal Government in terms of S.3 of the Sales Tax
Act, 1990---Neither the constitutional provisions, nor the Rules of Business,
1973 conferred power on a Secretary or head of a Division, to be treated as
the Federal Government---Secretary of the Revenue Division was not
empowered under R. 4(2) read with R. 3(3) of the Rules of Business, 1973 to
issue notifications pertaining to modifications of tax merely because the
subject fell within the scope of his responsibilities---Although the Rules of
Business, 1973 covered legislative work, but said Rules did not confer power
on the Executive to enact legislative measures---Rules of Business, 1973
neither conferred a power to make fiscal changes, nor could they, on any
meaningful interpretation of the Constitution, conceivably confer such a
power---Parliament could confer functions on subordinate authorities on the
recommendation of the Federal Government, in terms of Art. 98 of the
Constitution, however said provision did not contemplate the transfer of
legislative powers of any nature whatsoever to subordinate officials---Levy of
tax was the function of Parliament---Giving such function/power to the
Executive per se, would amount to a negation of the doctrine of
parliamentary supremacy and the doctrine of separation of powers---Breach
of R. 16 of the Rules of Business, 1973 by the Government in issuing the
notifications for withdrawal/modification of exemption from sales tax was
fatal to the case of the Government---Consequently the impugned
notifications were declared ultra vires and were struck down---Appeal was
allowed accordingly.

MUSTAFA IMPEX, KARACHI VS The GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through
Secretary Finance, Islamabad
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--98 , Constitutionality--Term , Rules of Business
1973--RULES , Sales Tax Act 1990--13 , Sales Tax Act 1990--3 , Sales Tax Act
1990--4 , Sales Tax Act 1990--71 , Sales Tax Act 1990--8 ,
Arts. 77, 90 & 98---Rules of Business, 1973, Rr.3(3), 4(2), 16 & 27---Sales Tax
Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 3(2)(b), 3(6), 4(c), 8(1)(b), 13(2)(a) & 71---Exemption from
sales tax, withdrawal/modification of---Notifications issued on the basis of the
approval of the Secretary and the Advisor of the relevant Division---
Constitutionality---Secretary or Advisor did not have any power to make
subordinate or delegated legislation---Such power had been conferred solely
and exclusively on the Federal Government in terms of S.3 of the Sales Tax
Act, 1990---Neither the constitutional provisions, nor the Rules of Business,
1973 conferred power on a Secretary or head of a Division, to be treated as
the Federal Government---Secretary of the Revenue Division was not
empowered under R.4(2) read with R.3(3) of the Rules of Business, 1973 to
issue notifications pertaining to modifications of tax merely because the
subject fell within the scope of his responsibilities---Although the Rules of
Business, 1973 covered legislative work, but said Rules did not confer power
on the Executive to enact legislative measures---Rules of Business, 1973
neither conferred a power to make fiscal changes, nor could they, on any
meaningful interpretation of the Constitution, conceivably confer such a
power---Parliament could confer functions on subordinate authorities on the
recommendation of the Federal Government, in terms of Art.98 of the
Constitution, however said provision did not contemplate the transfer of
legislative powers of any nature whatsoever to subordinate officials---Levy of
tax was the function of Parliament---Giving such function/power to the
Executive per se, would amount to a negation of the doctrine of
parliamentary supremacy and the doctrine of separation of powers---Breach
of R.16 of the Rules of Business, 1973 by the Government in issuing the
notifications for withdrawal/modification of exemption from sales tax was
fatal to the case of the Government---Consequently the impugned
notifications were declared ultra vires and were struck down---Appeal was
allowed accordingly.

Case
PUNJAB HEALTHCARE COMMISSION VS MUSHTAQ AHMED CH.
delegated legislation---Scope and meaning of---Difference between a
legislative and an executive or administrative instrument---delegated
legislation was that which proceeded from any authority other than sovereign
power and was therefore dependent for its continued existence and validity
on some superior or supreme authority---delegated legislation was also
referred to as secondary legislation or subordinate legislation or subsidiary
legislation and was a law made by an executive authority under powers given
to them by primary legislation in order to implement and administer the
requirements of such primary legislation---delegated legislation was thus law
made by a person or body other than the Legislature but with Legislature's
authority---Difference existed between administrative direction and delegated
legislation and delegated legislation was binding on both administration and
the individual and was enforceable through a court of law but a direction was
not so binding and enforceable on an individual or third party---Foundational
feature of subordinate legislation was that its source of power was the
Legislature itself, while the source of any administrative direction was the
statutory authority or agency, established by the same Legislature---Parent
statute must clearly delegate such power of legislation to the authority in
order to carry out the purposes of an Act.

Case
PUNJAB HEALTHCARE COMMISSION VS MUSHTAQ AHMED CH.
Constitutional petition--TERM , Punjab Healthcare Commission Act 2010--13 ,
Punjab Healthcare Commission Act 2010--30 , Punjab Healthcare Commission
Act 2010--4 , Punjab Healthcare Commission Act 2010--40 , Punjab Healthcare
Commission Act 2010--41 , Punjab Healthcare Commission Act 2010--5 ,
Punjab Healthcare Commission Act 2010--9 ,
Ss. 9(1)(i), 13, 4, 5, 40, 41 & 30---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.4 & 199---
Constitutional petition---Functions and powers of the Board of
Commissioners---Standing Orders of the Punjab Health Care Commission
approved by the Board under S. 9(1)(i) of the Punjab Healthcare Commission
Act, 2010---Sealing of healthcare establishments by Punjab Healthcare
Commission under a Standing Order approved per S.9(1)(i) of the Punjab
Healthcare Commission Act, 2010---Petitioner (Punjab Healthcare
Commission) initiated proceedings against respondent, who was a health
service establishment and sealed the said establishment, and said sealing was
set aside by District Court under S.30 of the Punjab Healthcare Commission
Act, 2010---Contention of petitioner (Commission) inter alia, was that S.9(1) of
the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010 provided for sealing of
healthcare provider/establishment and the impugned order passed by District
Court was therefore without lawful authority---Validity---Architecture of the
Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010 revealed that stewardship of the
Punjab Healthcare Commission was in the hands of the Board of
Commissioners as it exercised all the functions and powers of the said
Commission and therefore, the Commission was the legal entity which was
run and managed by the Board---Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010
only provided for penalties in the shape of monetary fine and there was no
provision for sealing or passing of an order for closing down a healthcare
establishment under the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010---No Rules
and Regulations under the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010 were in
the field as yet, hence the current legislative landscape was bereft of any such
powers---Section 9(1)(i) of Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010 provided
that the Board will approve the Standing Orders of the Commission and as the
Board ran and operated the Commission, the Standing Orders were in fact
framed and approved by the Board---Source of such Standing Orders was
therefore the Board or the Commission, and in the absence of any specific
power of delegation authorizing the Commission or the Board to issue
Standing Orders in order to give effect to the purposes of the Punjab
Healthcare Commission Act, 2010, such Standing Orders shall pass for
administrative directions of the Commission, which were not enforceable
against an individual or third party, however, the same may deal with internal
governance of the Commission or at best regulate internal working of the
Commission---Subordinate or delegated legislation, on the other hand, was
authorized by the parent legislation and simply advanced the purpose of
primary legislation and, therefore, enjoyed the force of law and Standing
Orders did not pass for law---Distinction existed between law passed by the
legislature or passed through delegation by the legislature and administrative
or internal orders or directions issued by a statutory body or authority that
was the Commission or the Board---High Court observed that under the
Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010, Regulations and the Rules framed
under Ss.40 & 41 of the Act would pass for subordinate legislation which
Rules and Regulations would advance and carry out the purposes of the
Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010 and the same also would undergo a
legislative process of previous publication with draft thereof to be published
in the official gazette for eliciting public opinion---Subordinate legislation, like
legislation, must entail public participation and official publication through
gazette notification whereas administrative orders or directives of any
authority including the Commission, on the other hand, were passed
internally by the authority and, therefore, only had an internal application---
Such administrative orders, at best, constituted guidelines or directions for
the Commission itself but did not bind any individual or any third party, as
they did not pass for a "law"---Standing Orders laying down the process of
sealing healthcare establishments and providing for the setting up of an Anti
Quackery Cell, therefore, had no legal force and could not be pressed against
any individual or third party---Absence of requisite statutory provisions or
Rules and Regulations could be filled through administrative Standing Orders
and action of sealing the healthcare establishment of respondent was
therefore, without the backing of law---Impugned order passed by the
learned District Court was upheld and Constitutional petition was dismissed,
in circumstances.

Case
KHURRAM VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary/Chairman
Interpretation of Statutes--TERM ,
'Primary legislation'/subordinate/delegated legislation'---Distinction,
requirements and object.
Case
KHURRAM VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary/Chairman
delegated legislation---Scope and object.
Citation Name: 2016 CLD 832 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this

Case
Mrs. REHANA ANWAR VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary,
Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad
Import Policy Order 2013--2 , Import Policy Order 2013--5-A ,
Cls. 5A & 2(1)---Import of vehicle---"New vehicle", meaning of---Definition of
"new vehicle" given in clause 2(1) of Import Policy Order, 2013 which was
being enforced to prohibit/ban import of vehicles/vans appeared to be
superfluous as the word "new vehicle" had not been used in clause 5(A) or
Appendix C of Import Policy Order, 2013 which banned import so that
meaning given to it by definition clause could not be enforced---Definition
given to particular word in a statute or instrument could only be resorted to
or enforced when such word was used by legislature and/or by authority in
case of delegated legislation in any section or clause of such
statute/instrument etc. otherwise it remained superfluous---Word "new
vehicle" had not been used in any of enforcing clauses which prohibit/ban
import of vehicles, therefore, import of vehicles which were "not used" or not
in "second hand condition" could not be banned.

Case
Mrs. REHANA ANWAR VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary,
Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad
Definition given to particular word in a statute or instrument could only be
resorted to or enforced when such word was used by legislature and/or by
authority in case of delegated legislation in any section or clause of such
statute/instrument etc. otherwise it remained superfluous.

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES (PVT) LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
1998 CLC 1585, 1999 CLC 607, 2013 SCMR 1752, PLD 1999 SC 504, PLD 2005
SC 193, PLD 2006 SC 697, PLD 2010 SC 265, PLD 2012 SC 923,
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitutional Jurisdiction--TERM ,
Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Scope---High Court has jurisdiction
under Art. 199 of the Constitution; to examine validity of any act of
Parliament and/or delegated legislation including notifications; in case any
law/act of Parliament violates any provision of the Constitution including
fundamental rights, the same can be struck down; and law can also be struck
down if it provides unfettered powers/discretion to be exercised in a
discriminatory manner.
Your Search returned total 126 records from 50 - 100
MUHAMMAD AMIN MUHAMMAD BASHIR LIMITED VS GOVERNMENT OF
PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariat,
Islamabad
Delegated Legislation--TERM , Legislation--TERM ,
delegated legislation---Principles---Discretion, exercise of---Scope---delegated
legislation entitled the delegate to carry out the mandate of the legislature,
either by framing rules, or regulations, which translated and applied the
substantive principles of law set out in the parent legislation or by recourse to
detailed administrative directions and instructions for the implementation of
the law---delegated legislation was intended to enforce the law, not override
it, and it could be used to fill in details but not vary the underlying statutory
principles---In case of conflict delegated legislation must yield to the
legislative will, as it was below and not above the law---Minutiae could be
filled in but the basic law could neither be added to nor subtracted from.

MUHAMMAD AMIN MUHAMMAD BASHIR LIMITED VS GOVERNMENT OF
PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariat,
Islamabad
Delegated Legislation--TERM , Legislation--TERM ,
delegated legislation---Principles---Discretion, exercise of---Scope---delegated
legislation entitled the delegate to carry out the mandate of the legislature,
either by framing rules, or regulations, which translated and applied the
substantive principles of law set out in the parent legislation or by recourse to
detailed administrative directions and instructions for the implementation of
the law---delegated legislation was intended to enforce the law, not override
it, and it could be used to fill in details but not vary the underlying statutory
principles---In case of conflict delegated legislation must yield to the
legislative will, as it was below and not above the law---Minutiae could be
filled in but the basic law could neither be added to nor subtracted from.

COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, JAMRUD ROAD, PESHAWAR VS
SALMAN KHAN
1980 SCMR 114, 2009 SCMR 226,
Customs Act 1969--15 , Customs Act 1969--156 , Customs Act 1969--16 ,
Customs Act 1969--181 , Customs Act 1969--187 , Customs Act 1969--196 ,
Customs Act 1969--2 , Customs Act 1969--244 , Redemption--TERM ,
Ss. 2 (s), 15, 16, 156 (I) (90), 181, 187, 196 & 244---Notification
S.R.O.499(I)/2009, dated, 13-6-2009---Smuggled goods---Redemption---
Customs authorities recovered smuggled foreign cloth from a vehicle and
seized both the goods and vehicle---Authorities confiscated the goods but
allowed release of vehicle on payment of 20% redemption fine---Appellate
authority modified the order and also allowed to release of goods on payment
of redemption fine equal to 30% of customs value of goods---Customs,
Federal Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal partially allowed appeal by
reducing certain duties and fine---Validity---Initial onus to prove valid
importation and payment of duties and taxes or even its lawful possession
was upon the person in possession of questionable goods under S. 187 of
Customs Act, 1969, read with S. 156(1)(90) of Customs Act, 1969---If person in
possession of questionable goods or its owner was unable to discharge his
onus to prove valid importation or lawful possession, the same would come
within the mischief of term "smuggled goods" under S.2(s) of Customs Act,
1969---Any "smuggled goods" as provided under S.2(s) of Customs Act, 1969,
could be released on payment of redemption fine under S. 181 of Customs
Act, 1969, unless expressly notified by the Federal Government under the first
proviso to S. 181 of Customs Act, 1969---Concerned officer in absence of any
compelling reasons, must not withhold exercise of discretion of giving option
to owner of goods under S. 181 Customs Act, 1969, in lieu of payment of fine,
except in the cases in which goods could not be allowed to be circulated in
market or goods which were imported in violation of S. 15 of Customs Act,
1969, or of the notification issued under S.16 of Customs Act, 1969---Officers
dealing with confiscated goods, on payment of fine, could not alter the same
at their own discretion---Fact whether questionable goods seized were
foreign or locally manufactured, was a question of fact, which could be
agitated and decided before forums provided under Customs Act, 1969, and
not before High Court in its jurisdiction under S. 196 of Customs Act, 1969---
Orders issued by Federal Board of Revenue under S. 181 of Customs Act,
1969, was delegated legislation and was distinct from the orders issued under
S.244 of Customs Act, 1969---Provisions of S.R.O. 499(I)/2009, dated 13-6-
2009, were orders issued by Federal Board of Revenue under S.181 of
Customs Act, 1969, and were binding upon customs officers, even when they
were adjudicating the matters as qusi judicial authorities under Customs Act,
1969---High Court set aside judgments passed by the forums below and
reference was answered in affirmative.

NORTHERN BOTTLING (PVT.) LTD. VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through
Secretary
Subordinate legislation---Scope---Generally subordinate or delegated
legislation empowers delegatee to exercise authority only to the extent of
authority delegated to it by delegator under the law.
Citation Name: 2015 CLD 569 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Case
FIRST IBL MODARABA VS Mrs. RANA AZHAR SAYED
Companies Ordinance 1984--152 , Companies Ordinance 1984--503 ,
Companies Ordinance 1984--86 , Modaraba Companies and Modaraba
(Floatation and Control) Ordinance 1980--11 , Modaraba Companies and
Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance 1980--19 , Modaraba
Companies and Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance 1980--20 ,
Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance
1980--41 , Modaraba Companies and Modaraba Rules 1981--RULE , Prudential
Regulations for Modarabas 2004--RULE ,
Regln. 7(7), proviso--- Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.86, 503 &
152---Modaraba Companies and Modaraba Rules, 1981, R. 3(2)(e)---
Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance
(XXXI of 1980), Ss. 41, 11, 19 & 20---Companies governed by special
enactments---Investment by a modaraba in an unlisted company---Restriction
on investments by a modaraba in an unlisted company exceeding five per
cent of modaraba's equity---Petition under S. 152 of the Companies
Ordinance, 1984 seeking rectification of Register of Companies---Issue before
the High Court was whether the petitioner, which was a modaraba company,
was prohibited under Prudential Regulations for Modarabas, 2004 from
investing further in the shares of the company, since as per the said
Regulations, an investment made by a modaraba in an unlisted Company
could not exceed five per cent of the modaraba's equity---Contention of the
petitioner was that the said restriction was not absolute and could be waived
in terms of proviso to Regln. 7(7) of the Prudential Regulations for
Modarabas, 2004 and that the Prudential Regulations for Modarabas, 2004
was a sub-delegated legislation which could not override the provisions of
S.86 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 regarding further issuance of
capital---Held, that contention of the petitioner was misplaced as by virtue of
the clear language of Regln. 7(7) of the Prudential Regulations for Modarabas,
2004 the petitioner had to first move an application before the Registrar
(Modaraba) seeking waiver of the restriction placed on it and only when such
permission was granted, could the petitioner become entitled to issuance of
further shares in the Company---Contention that the Prudential Regulations
for Modarabas, 2004 was a sub-delegated legislation, and could not override
provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 had no substance as the
petitioner being a modaraba was regulated and bound by the Prudential
Regulations for Modarabas, 2004 and could not take refuge behind S. 86 of
the Companies Ordinance, 1984---Petitioner, in the present case, was under a
legal disability by virtue of the Prudential Regulations for Modarabas, 2004
from exercising its right of first refusal with respect to further issuance of
shares in the Company and such disentitlement would continue till such time
it obtained the necessary permission from the Registrar (Modaraba) in terms
of the proviso to Regln. 7(7) of Prudential Regulations for Modarabas, 2004---
Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 shall be subject to the
provisions of the Modaraba Companies and Modaraba Rules, 1981 and the
prudential regulations framed thereunder and in case of conflict between the
provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and Prudential Regulations for
Modarabas, 2004, the latter had to prevail by force of S. 503 of the
Companies Ordinance, 1984 and the court could not pass any order in favour
of the petitioner which would result in violation of Prudential Regulations for
Modarabas, 2004---Section 86 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 by force of
S. 503 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 had to yield to the restriction placed
on the petitioner under Prudential Regulations for Modarabas, 2004---Petition
under S.152 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 was dismissed, in
circumstances.

PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD. VS PAKISTAN
TELECOMMUNICATION AUTHORITY
1985 SCMR 365, 2001 SCMR 838, 2005 SCMR 186, 2007 SCMR 307, 2010
SCMR 1437, 2013 SCMR 642, PLD 2005 SC 842, PLD 2011 SC 619,
Rules and regulations---Scope---delegated legislation---Regulations or rules
fall in the category known as delegated or subordinate legislation--- Authority
empowered to make rules or regulations cannot go beyond the scope of the
statute---No rule or regulation can be made inconsistent with parent statute
and any such delegated legislation is void and inoperative to the extent of the
inconsistency.

AZAM WAZIR KHAN VS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
State Bank of Pakistan Act 1956--9-A ,
S. 9A---Banking Control Department (BCD) Circulars issued by State Bank of
Pakistan---Scope---Such Circulars, which could be termed as delegated
legislation/directives/orders, could not displace legislative instruments such
as Acts of Parliament.

ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED VS SAID REHMAN
Delegated Legislation--TERM ,
Reasons justifying need for delegated legislation---Firstly, there is pressure on
parliamentary time; secondly, the technicality of subject matter necessitates
prior consultation and expert advice on interests concerned, and thirdly, the
need for flexibility is established because it is not possible to foresee every
administrative difficulty that may arise to make adjustment that may be called
for after the statute has begun to operate.
Citation Name: 2013 CLD 974 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

AZAM WAZIR KHAN VS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
State Bank of Pakistan Act 1956--9-A ,
S. 9A---Banking Control Department (BCD) Circulars issued by State Bank of
Pakistan--- Scope--- Such Circulars, which could be termed as delegated
legislation/directives/orders, could not displace legislative instruments such
as Acts of Parliament.
Citation Name: 2013 PLC(CS) 1223 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case
ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED VS SAID REHMAN
Reasons justifying need for delegated legislation---Firstly, there is pressure on
parliamentary time; secondly, the technicality of subject matter necessitates
prior consultation and expert advice on interests concerned, and thirdly, the
need for flexibility is established because it is not possible to foresee every
administrative difficulty that may arise to make adjustment that may be called
for after the statute has begun to operate.

Case
GHULAM NABI VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Member Customs
(Legal) Revenue Division FBR, Islamabad
Tax statutes---delegated legislation---Amendment in law/notification---
Retrospective effect of such amendment---Scope---Concessionary notification,
regulation or executive order could be given retrospective effect if it went to
the comfort of the taxpayer.
Citation Name: 2012 PLC(CS) 917 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), DISTRICT KHUSHAB AT
JAUHARABAD VS IJAZ HUSSAIN
Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1974--
RULES , Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974--4 ,
S. 4---Punjab Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules,
1974, R.17---Constitution of Pakistan, Preamble---Recruitment, process of---
Policy matter---Academic qualification and interview marks---Ratio---
Trichotomy of power---Scope---Respondents were unsuccessful in selection of
Patwaris and assailed process of selection on the ground that recruitment
policy was defective as it had reserved 60% marks for academic qualification
and 40% for interview---High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction
directed the Provincial Government to amend the recruitment policy and
marks for interview should not exceed 25 % of the total marks---Authorities
contended that High Court could not have issued directions to amend
recruitment policy as such power fell within policy making domain of the
executive authority---Validity---Recruitment policy was framed by Provincial
Government as part of delegated legislation and its provisions could not have
been struck down on vague considerations of being "unreasonable" or likely
to be misused---Presumption was that those who exercise such powers would
have done it in a bona fide manner and if such power was exercised in a mala
fide manner, it was the particular mala fide act which could be challenged and
struck down---Provisions did not become unconstitutional, violative of
fundamental rights or unreasonable simply because it could be abused
because any provisions of law could be misused if the wielder of power so
intended---Framing of recruitment policy and rules thereunder, fell in the
executive domain---Constitution of Pakistan was based on the principle of
trichotomy of powers where legislature was vested with the functions of law
making, the executive with its enforcement and judiciary of interpreting the
law---Courts could neither assume the role of policy maker nor that of a law
maker, therefore, to such extent the judgment passed by High Court was set
aside by Supreme Court---Appeal was allowed.
Citation Name: 2012 PTD 1094 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF

PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case
PUNJAB BEVERAGES COMPANY (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD VS C.I.R., R.T.O.,
FAISALABAD
2003 PTD 757, 2005 PTD 2286, 2006 PTD 2821,
Appointment of Authorities--Term , Sales Tax Act 1990--11 , Sales Tax Act
1990--30 , Sales Tax Act 1990--36 , Sales Tax Act 1990--45 ,
Ss.30, 11, 36(1) & 45---S.R.O. 547(1)/2008 dated 11-6-2008---Circular
C.No.1(19)IR-Jud/2007-Pt dated 11-11-2009---F.B.R. Order C. No.1(32)/2009-
MIIA dated 24-11-2009---F.B.R. Order No.1805-MIIA/2009 dated 25-11-
2009---Federal Board of Revenue Act (IV of 2007), Ss.4(1)(h) & 5(1)(b)---
Appointment of Authorities---Appointment of Deputy Commissioner Inland
Revenue Officers---Taxpayer contended that order under S.11(5) of the Sales
Tax Act, 1990 were to be passed by "an officer of Inland Revenue" who had
been appointed through a notification in the official Gazette for the purpose
of Sales Tax Act, 1990 in relation to case/area specified in the notification; and
as per provisions of S.30 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 as stood prior to
amendment, the S.R.O. 547(1)/2008 dated 11-6-2008 had been issued
appointing sales tax authorities and assigning them jurisdiction but after
amendment of S.30 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and related amendments, no
notification/S.R.O. was issued and published in the official Gazette appointing
sales tax authorities and assigning them jurisdiction with regard to the case or
area of the registered person which was a pre-requisite for any proceedings
by an Officer of the Inland Revenue; and order passed against the taxpayer
were without lawful authority and of no legal effect---Validity---First Appellate
Authority impliedly admitted that there was no notification in the official
Gazette on the pattern of earlier S.R.O. 547(1)/2008 dated 11-6-2008 yet he
held that the spirit of law had been fulfilled as the orders of the Federal Board
of Revenue appointing sales tax authorities and assigning them jurisdiction
were issued; and reference to orders C.No.1(32)/2009-MIIA dated 24-11-2009
was made which in fact pertained to re-designation of posts made under
S.4(1)(h) and S.5(1)(b) of the Federal Board of Revenue Act, 2007 and not in
pursuance of S.30 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Reliance had also been placed
upon another order No.1805-M-IIA/2009 dated 25-11-2009 which was in fact
a transfer and posting order placing certain officers in the Regional Tax Office
and not a statutory notification under S.30 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---All
such orders were administrative orders and there was no notification/S. R.O.
published in the official Gazette on the pattern of earlier S.R.O. 547(1)/2008
dated 11-6-2008 issued in exercise of amended powers available under S.30
of the Sales Tax Act, 1990--Federal Board of Revenue's jurisdiction Order
C.No.1(19)IR-Jud/ 2007-Pt dated 11-11-2009 assigning jurisdiction to
Commissioners Inland Revenue was not a substitute for stipulated mandator
notification published in the official Gazette appointing authorities for the
purpose of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and assigning jurisdiction to them-. No
notification/S. R. O. in order to amend earlier S.R.O. 547(1)/200, dated 11-6-
2008 was issued and published in the official Gazette-Authority passing the
order-in-original had not been appointed uncle, S.30(1) for the purposes of
Sales Tax Act, 1990 and the case of the taxpayer was not assigned to him by
express delegated legislation as per precedent and pattern of S.R.O.
547(1)/2008 dated 11-6-2008-Assumption of jurisdiction and passing of order-
in-original was illegal, and void.

EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), DISTRICT KHUSHAB AT
JAUHARABAD VS IJAZ HUSSAIN
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--PREAMBLE , Punjab Civil Servants
(Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules 1974--RULE , Punjab Civil
Servants Act 1974--4 ,
S. 4---Punjab Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules,
1974, R.17---Constitution of Pakistan, Preamble---Recruitment, process of---
Policy matter---Academic qualification and interview marks---Ratio---
Trichotomy of power---Scope---Respondents were unsuccessful in selection of
Patwaris and assailed process of selection on the ground that recruitment
policy was defective as it had reserved 60% marks for academic qualification
and 40% for interview---High Court, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction
directed the Provincial Government to amend the recruitment policy and
marks for interview should not exceed 25 % of the total marks---Authorities
contended that High Court could not have issued directions to amend
recruitment policy as such power fell within policy making domain of the
executive authority---Validity---Recruitment policy was framed by Provincial
Government as part of delegated legislation and its provisions could not have
been struck down on vague considerations of being "unreasonable" or likely
to be misused---Presumption was that those who exercise such powers would
have done it in a bona fide manner and if such power was exercised in a mala
fide manner, it was the particular mala fide act which could be challenged and
struck down---Provisions did not become unconstitutional, violative of
fundamental rights or unreasonable simply because it could be abused
because any provisions of law could be misused if the wielder of power so
intended---Framing of recruitment policy and rules thereunder, fell in the
executive domain---Constitution of Pakistan was based on the principle of
trichotomy of powers where legislature was vested with the functions of law
making, the executive with its enforcement and judiciary of interpreting the
law---Courts could neither assume the role of policy maker nor that of a law
maker, therefore, to such extent the judgment passed by High Court was set
aside by Supreme Court---Appeal was allowed.
Citation Name: 2011 PLD 120 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case

KHALID MAHMOOD VS N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary, Peshawar
1992 SCMR 1652, 2009 SCMR 1070, PLD 1961 SC 452, PLD 1974 SC 180, PLD
1977 SC 639, PLD 1978 SC 190, PLD 1998 SC 64, PLD 2001 SC 340, PLD 2010
Kar. 236,
Concept---Levy of duty by delegated legislation---Scope---Concept of
delegated legislation" had gained momentum with the mushroom population
growth, the dire need for "good governance" and the ultimate aim to cater
for the essential basic needs of every segment of the society to bolster and
fulfil the attributes of an "Islamic Welfare State"---Present day Parliament
could not possibly legislate on each and every detail of the vast legislative
needs---"Delegated legislation", was whereby the legislature through
legislation delegated to the Government or any other specified authority to
legislate through rules, regulations, orders, instructions or any other
instrument in conformity with the dictates of the parent statute---"Delegated
legislation" could surely be challenged on the ground of being excessive,
beyond the authority of the parent statute; further sub-delegating, what was
delegated by the parent statute; and finally that the same was not properly
made public to all---Levy of duty through `delegated legislation', was not ultra
vires---All legislation, more so "delegated legislation", were to be prospective
in the effect and applicability, unless same had been expressed to be
otherwise; and that too with the backing of the parent statute---If an
instrument of "delegated legislation", such as a notification, would impair or
disturb or adversely affect or reduce any benefit or impose a liability or any
other way affect the interest or right of a person, it would always be
prospective in operation and not retrospective.
Citation Name: 2011 PLD 120 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case

KHALID MAHMOOD VS N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary, Peshawar
Constitutional petition--TERM , N.-W.F.P. Forest Ordinance 2002--56 ,
S. S6---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Levy of
duty and forest development charge on timber and other forest produce---
Levy of duty through "delegated legislation" was not ultra vires---Authority of
delegating the power to levy duty had to be clear, unambiguous and precisely
rendered to a particular authority--Delegated authority to levy duty provided
under S.56(1) of North-West Frontier Province Forest Ordinance, 2002, was
"conditional" upon the rules to be framed on the manner, the place and the
rates of the duty-.. North-West Frontier Province Forest Ordinance, 2002
being the parent statute, did not expressly delegate the authority to the
Provincial Government to levy duty with retrospective effect---When the
parent statute did not provide and expressly delegate such authority to the
Provincial Government to levy the duty retrospectively, same could not be so
exercised.

Case
SHAHEEN COTTON MILLS, LAHORE VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY
OF COMMERCE through Secretary
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 ,
Art. 199---delegated legislation by Government---Judicial review by High
Court---Scope---Essential grounds stated.

Case
SHAHEEN COTTON MILLS, LAHORE VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY
OF COMMERCE through Secretary
1995 CLC 1687, PLD 1993 SC 341, PLD 1997 SC 582, PLD 2005 SC 193, PLD
2007 SC 642,
Arts. 18 & 38---Expression "lawful trade or business" as used in Art. 18 of the
Constitution---Connotation---Surplusage would not be easily attributed to a
statute least of all a constitutional document---Such Article must be read in
context of entire Constitution and interpreted by giving effect to every word
and expression used therein including expression "lawful trade or business"---
Expression "lawful trade or business" was not surplusage, meaningless,
irrelevant or superfluous---Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the
Constitution could neither exist in isolation nor be exercised in a vacuum,
thus, they must be read in a manner that each right being subject to other
right, otherwise one right would collide with another right---Constitution
being a living document, thus, interpretation of its provisions must be
dynamic rather than strategic and elastic rather than rigid---Right guaranteed
under such Article might be exercised subject to reasonable qualifications and
regulations-Government not prohibited by such article from creating a State
monopoly in respect of any trade, business, industry or service in exclusion of
citizens---Right guaranteed under such Article could not be interpreted by
excluding or ignoring any provisions of the Constitution including Art. 38
thereof casting responsibility upon State to secure well-being of its citizens
and promote and protect employment---Expressions "lawful" and "legal"
were not synonymous---Limitations might be imposed by law on right to
undertake any trade or business in order to harmonize such right with a
competing fundamental right of another person or fulfil a positive command
of the Constitution---Such limitations must be rational and proportionate to
end sought to be achieved---Such limitations, if imposed through a Federal or
Provincial legislation, must stand test of constitutionality by not being in
violation of the Constitution or fundamental rights guaranteed thereunder---
Such limitations, if imposed through delegated legislation, then additional test
of same not being uncertain, not unreasonable or ultra vires parent statute
and not in conflict with any other law would apply---Such limitation, if
imposed through an executive action, then such action must necessarily be
taken in exercise of powers conferred by law and in accordance therewith
without offending any other law or Constitution or fundamental rights
guaranteed thereunder.
Citation Name: 2009 YLR 636 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this
Case
Syed TARIQ MAHMOOD VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Joint
Secretary, Ministry of Minorities (Minorities Affairs Division), Islamabad
Subordinate delegated legislation is not retrospective unless a power to such
effect is incorporated therein.
Citation Name: 2009 PTD 1353 Customs, Federal Excise and Sales Tax
Appellate Tribunal Bookmark this Case
VS
1998 SCMR 307,
General Clauses Act 1897--21 , Sales Tax Act 1990--57 ,
S.57---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.21---Civil Procedure Code (V of
1908), O.XLVII---Correction of clerical errors etc.---Application for review of
appeal order under S.57 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Validity---Refusal to
review shall not give fresh order to file appeal against it---Review application
filed under S.57 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was undoubtedly, not maintainable
as the said section related to correction of clerical or arithmetical error in any
assessment, adjudication order or decision--Clerical error was an error iii
writing or typing, whereas arithmetical error was an error of calculation--
Rectification order like the original order was appealable, if issued---Review
application, filed before the Collector (Appeals) under S.57 of the Sales Tax
Act, 1990 did not relate to any clerical or arithmetical error rather it involved
certain, factual and legal issues---Cause and ground of review was beyond the
scope of S.57 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 as it squarely deals only with removal
of clerical or arithmetical error---Similarly, review under S.21 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 relating to issues involved was also irrelevant as the scope
of the said section was restricted only to an executive order and delegated
legislation---Review application under S.21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
thus was void ab initio and nullity in the eyes of law---Likewise, even if the
review application before the Collector (Appeals) by the appellant-
department was considered under Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908 for having been filed on 41st day, then the same was barred by 26 days
without any plausible explanation given by the appellant-department in this
behalf.

CHAIRMAN, C.B.R. VS Haji SULTAN AHMAD
PLD 1993 SC 210, PLD 2001 SC 600, PLD 2004 SC 694,
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , Sales Tax Act 1990--3 , Sales Tax Act
1990--50 , Sales Tax Act 1990--71 , Sales Tax Special Producer Rules 2007--
Preamble ,
Ss. 71, 50 & 3---Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007, Preamble---S.R.O.
678(I)/2007, dated 6-7-2007---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---
Vires of Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007 notified vide S.R.O.
678(I)/2007 issued by the Federal Government in exercise of powers under
S.71, Sales Tax Act, 1990---Supreme Court while suspending the operation of
judgment of the High Court, granted leave to appeal to consider, inter alia the
questions as to whether in the impugned judgment, the High Court, while
declaring the rules ultra vires, had followed the parameters laid down by
Supreme Court in cases The Collector of Sales Tax and others v. Superior
Textile Mills Ltd. and others PLD 2001 SC 600, Khawaja Ahmad Hassan v.
Government of Punjab and others PLD 2004 SC 694 and Karachi Building
Control Authority v. Hashwani Sales and Services Ltd. PLD 1993 SC 210; that.
whether in the impugned judgment the High Court had failed to point out as
to how the rules were ultra vires the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and whether the
Court had properly considered the view taken by the Superior Court that
before declaring delegated legislation ultra vires, the Court must reconcile it
with the main statute and liberal construction has to be placed on such rules;
that whether the High Court had failed to consider that the S.R.O. 678(I)/87
actually related to a transparent regime for the recovery of tax in which the
tax collector and the tax payer did not even interact and the discretion to
collect tax was completely eliminated and there was an absolute willingness
to voluntarily pay the tax by the tax payer; that whether the High Court had
disregarded that linking a tax liability with consumption of electricity unit was
in effect creating objective criterion for calculation of tax liability and such
method of calculation eliminated discretion, corruption and ensured
transparency in the tax collection process; that whether the High Court had
erred in not examining the conduct of the assessees who were estopped from
challenging the S.R.O. 678(I)/2007, by their conduct as they had themselves
persuaded the Government and Federal Board of Revenue to evolve the
special tax/levy regime for the purpose of this section and that whether the
High Court had given a restrictive interpretation to the language of S.R.O.
678(I) of 2007 as well as section 3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.

Case
TARIQ MAHMOOD VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Joint Secretary,
Ministry of Minorities (Minorities Affairs Division) Islamabad
Subordinate delegated legislation is not retrospective in operation unless a
power to this effect is incorporated.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE-C, LAHORE VS Messrs KASHMIR
EDIBILE OILS LTD.
1988 SCMR 747, PLD 1963 SC 486, PLD 1964 SC 266, PLD 1983 SC 457,
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , Income Tax Ordinance 2001--114 ,
Income Tax Ordinance 2001--121 , Income Tax Ordinance 2001--122 , Income
Tax Ordinance 2001--137 , Income Tax Ordinance 2001--141 , Income Tax
Ordinance 2001--161 , Income Tax Ordinance 2001--221 , Income Tax
Ordinance 2001--239 , Income Tax Ordinance 2001--240 ,
-Ss. 240, 114, 121, 122, 137, 141, 161, 221 & 239---S.R.O. No.633(I)/2002,
dated 14-9-2002---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Removal of
difficulties ---S.R.O. No.633(I)/2002, dated 14-9-2002 issued by the Federal
Government, in purported exercise of powers conferred by S.240, Income Tax
Ordinance, 2001 whereby .certain amendments were made in Ss. 114, 121,
122, 137, 141, 161, 221 & 239 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was in
excess of powers of delegated legislation to the Federal Government as
contemplated by S.240 of the Ordinance and said notification was without
lawful authority and of no legal effect---Principles. The power of the Federal
Government to make an order under section 240 of the Income Tax
Ordinance, 2001 was exercisable if a difficulty had arisen or was likely to arise
in giving effect to any of the provisions of the Ordinance. However, such an
order was required to be in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance
and also necessary for the purpose of removing the difficulty. The Federal
Government was not empowered to bring about drastic changes in the
Ordinance to achieve the purpose of removing the difficulty which might or
might have not arisen. By notification dated 14-9-2002, the Federal
Government, instead of removing any difficulty, made substantial
amendments in sections 114, 121, 122, 137, 147, 161 and 239 of the
Ordinance. The essential legislative functions were not conferred by section
240 of the Ordinance on the Federal Government. Rather there was a specific
prohibition against making an order which was repugnant to provisions of the
Ordinance. The law making power was not intended by the legislature to be
given to the Government. Only the incidental or ancillary powers were
delegated for the purpose of removing a difficulty. The provisions of the
Ordinance were amended by the Government in such a manner that it was
not possible to reconcile them with the original enactment. If an amendment
of a statute made by the Government, in exercise of delegated power, was of
fundamental character, then the distinction between an amendment and
repeal of a statutory provision was some time obliterated.

Case
MUHAMMAD YOUNUS SHAIKH VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
---Subordinate legislation---Effect---Rules are in the category of subordinate
legislation and such legislation can never have overriding effect on an Act of
Parliament---Even if one subordinate legislation is repugnant to other
subordinate legislation, it does not make either of them to be invalid---In
order to make a subordinate legislation to be invalid it has to be shown that
either it is beyond the jurisdiction of the authority exercising power of
delegated legislation or it was violative of the provisions of the Act of
Parliament or is repugnant to any provision of the Constitution.

Case
MUHAMMAD YOUNUS SHAIKH VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
PLD 1986 Kar. 373,
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Customs Act 1969--16 , Customs Act
1969--219 , Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance 1980--26 , Imports
and Exports (Control) Act 1950--3 ,
---Ss.16 & 219---Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.3 (3)---
Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance (IV of 1980), S.26---Notifications
S.R.O. No.46.1 (I)/2004, dated 12-6-2004 & S.R.O. No.634(1)/2004, dated 22-
7-2004---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---
Vires of Notifications S.R.O. No.461 (I)/2004, dated 12-6-2004 & SRO
No.634(1)/2004, dated 22-7-2004--Scope-Federal Government being
empowered under S.26 of Export Processing Zones-Authority Ordinance,
1980, to frame rules it had framed the Export Processing Zones Authority
Rules, 1981---Central Board of Revenue had issued notification S.R.O.
249(1)/81, dated 25-3-1981, whereunder R.6 of Customs Export Processing
Zone Rules, '1981, had rightly dealt with the levy of taxes and duties only if
and when export or import under Export Processing Zones Authority
Ordinance, 1980, took place---Notification S.R.O. No. 634(I)/2004, dated 22-7-
2004, issued by Federal Government in exercise of powers conferred by S.3(1)
of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, in the form of Import Policy Order,
2004, was a valid piece .of delegated legislation---By virtue of provisions
contained in S.16 of Customs Act, 1969, read with S.3 (3) of Imports and
Exports (Control) Act, 1950, the Central Board of Revenue was empowered to
frame rules in exercise of powers under S.219 of Customs Act, 1969,
therefore, Notification S.R.O. No.461(1)/2004, dated 12-6-2004, amending
various rules in Customs Rules, 2001, including addition of sub-rule (4) in Rule
228 was in accordance with the law and was not open to any exception---
Petition was dismissed in limine.

Khawaja AHMAD HASSAAN VS GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
----Determination as to whether a piece of delegated legislation was bad on
the ground of arbitrary and excessive delegation---Principles to be kept in
view by the Court enumerated.

Case
SHAKEEL SHAHID VS MUHAMMAD YOUNIS ZAHID
Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance 2000--14 , Punjab Local
Government Elections Ordinance 2000--38 , Punjab Local Government
Elections Rules 2000--RULE ,
----R. 70(2)---Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance (V of 2000), Ss. 38
& 14(2) [as amended by Punjab Local Government Elections (Amendment)
Ordinance (X of 2001)]---Absence of any provision in the Punjab Local
Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 for the establishment of Election
Tribunals or for filing of election petitions, does not bar the Punjab Local
Government Elections Rules, 2003 from making such provision nor otherwise
invalidates delegated legislation made in this behalf by the Provincial
Government---Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2003 provide a
complete code of rules for assuring the conduct and completion of fair,
transparent and peaceful elections in furtherance of the statutory object of
Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2001---Punjab Local
Government Elections Rules, 2003 are not, by their detail and
comprehensiveness in any way, repugnant to their parent statute; the Punjab
Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2003---Rules shall always be
consistent with the statute and no rule shall militate against or render the
provisions of the statute ineffective---Test of consistency is whether the
provisions of the statute and that of Rules can stand together---Main object of
Rules is to implement the provisions of the statute and in case of conflict
between them the rule must give way to the provisions of the statute---Rules,
in any case shall not be repugnant to the enactment under which they are
made and this test is satisfied amply by the Punjab-Local Government
Elections Rules, 2003---Principles. Question remains to be considered whether
the absence of any provision in the Punjab Local Government Elections
Ordinance for the establishment of Election Tribunals or for filing of election
petitions, bars the Punjab Local Government Elections Rules from making
such provision or otherwise invalidates delegated legislation made in this
behalf by the Provincial Government. In the first instance, it is pertinent to
note that as a species of subordinate legislation, the Election Rules framed
under section 38 of the Elections Ordinance, may competently create legal
rights and obligations for persons falling within the pale of the Elections
Ordinance. Thus, the Elections Rules create an elaborate framework for
regulating the process of elections from the point of their inception to their
conclusion. This includes many stages that are crucial for the conduct of fair
elections and are in elaboration of matters contemplated by the Elections
Ordinance. Thus, in furtherance of specific intent of the Elections Ordinance,
the Elections Rules deal with matters regarding preparation of electoral rolls,
delimitation of the constituencies, determination of the election programme,
assistance to the Chief Election Commissioner. There are, however, several
other matters dealt with in the Elections Rules that develop and supply the
necessary detail to the framework of rights and duties envisaged by the
provisions of the Elections Ordinance. These include establishment of polling
stations, selection and appointment of polling staff, filing and scrutiny of
nomination papers, allotment of elections symbols, monitoring and
controlling of election day proceedings, compilation of results, oath of office
of elected candidates and determination of election disputes. As such, the
Elections Rules provide a complete code of rules for assuring the conduct and
completion of fair, transparent and peaceful elections in furtherance of the
statutory object of the Elections Ordinance. The question whether the
Elections Rules, by their detail and comprehensiveness in any way are
repugnant to their parent statute, the Elections Ordinance, is clearly to be
answered in the negative. This is because the purpose of subordinate
legislation is to define and effectuate the object of parent legislation. The rule
shall always be consistent with the Act and no rule shall militate or render the
provisions of the Act ineffective. The test of consistency is whether the
provisions of the Act and those of the rules can stand together. Main object of
rules is to implement the provisions of the Act and in case of conflict between
them the rule must give way to the provisions of the Act. In any case, the
rules shall not be repugnant to the enactment under which they are made.

Case
AZIZ AHMAD VS PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER (I.-G.P.), PUNJAB LAHORE
--Departmental Circulars were good enough for the internal management and
control, but they could not confer any right on or deprive a person of a right,
which was only possible on the basis of a statutory provisions or a rule made
by a competent Authority under concept of delegated legislation---If the Rules
framed under the statute were in excess of the provisions of the statute or
were in contravention or inconsistent with such provisions then provisions of
main statute must prevail and such rules, etc., could not be given legal effect.

Case
Syed SHAHID ALEEM VS PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING SOCIETY
through Administrator
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--4 , Constitutional petition--TERM , Pakistan
Defence Officers Housing Authority Order 1980--23 , Pakistan Defence
Officers Housing Authority Order 1980--9 ,
--Arts. 23 & 9-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199, 4 & 18---
Constitutional petition---Executive Committee of the Pakistan Defence
Officers' Housing Authority had prescribed criteria and qualification for Real
Estate Agents working within the territorial jurisdiction of the Authority and
dealing with the properties governed by the Authority---Effect of such
condition would be that nobody else shall be permitted to conduct .real
estate business in the area under the control of the Authority except those
registered with the Authority---Contention of the petitioners was that the
Authority had no such authority in law and the criteria/qualification
prescribed for registration of Real Estate Agents, was violative of Arts. 18 and
4 of the Constitution---Validity---Held, Rules/Regulations passed by the
Authority should be restricted and confined to carry out the purposes of the
Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority Order, 1980 but same shall not
extend to regulate the business or affairs of any other person/persons or
agencies which were not part and parcel of the Authority; for the purpose of
regulating the business of Real Estate Agents, there should be specific
provision within the realm of delegated legislation and in exercise of that
delegated authority only, the Authority could make law in the nature of
subordinate legislation---Executive Committee was empowered to make such
regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of Pakistan Defence Officers'
Housing Authority Order, 1980 and the Rules it might consider necessary or
expedient for the administration and management of the affairs of the
Authority---Authority, had no jurisdiction to prescribe any condition or
authority to regulate the working of the Real Estate Agents---Purported
regulation passed by the Authority was without jurisdiction and consequently
void ab initio---Criteria/qualification and every decision made thereunder by
Authority was ordered to be quashed by the High Court being ultra vires, and
violative of the provisions contained in Arts. 4 and 18 of the Constitution---
Principles.

Khawaja AHMAD HASSAAN VS GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others
----Determination as to whether a piece of delegated legislation was bad on
the ground of arbitrary and excessive delegation---Principles to be kept in
view by the Court enumerated.
Citation Name: 2003 PLC(CS) 180 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this

Case
MALIK NAZ VS UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR
Legislation--TERM ,
Legislation ---- delegated legislation---Scope---Provisions of principal
legislation cannot be rendered ineffective through delegated legislation---
delegated legislation must not be in conflict with the main Act.

Case
MUZAFFAR KHAN VS EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY
Interpretation of Statutes ---- Power to issue Notification, Orders, Rules or
Bye-laws would include power to add, amend, vary or rescind Orders, Rules or
Bye-laws---delegated legislation could be described as orders, rules,
regulations, schemes, licences and instruments---Any nomenclature could be
used by the enabling Act---Term "scheme" was used where power was given
to make detailed arrangements for some matter considered to be in need of
general statutory administration---Scheme/bye-laws could be struck down as
ultra vires on five main grounds if statutory procedure prescribed for making
them, had not been followed; if they were repugnant to provisions of some
other statute; if they conflicted with parent Act itself; if they were uncertain,
and if they were unreasonable---Item of delegated Legislation was, by a
paradox, grant of executive power to a person or body under legislative
powers conferred by enabling Act---Vagueness, ambiguity, arbitrariness and
uncertainty could render a regulation/ scheme void.

Case
UNITED BANK LIMITED VS MESSR AZMAT TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED
Interpretation of Statutes ----delegated legislation---While construing the
provisions of delegated legislation, the scope of authority conferred upon the
delegatee by the parent statute, must always be kept in view.

Case
MEHRAN SECURITY SERVICE (PVT.) LTD. VS PAKISTAN
Constitution of Pakistan 1973 ----Art. 99---Conduct of business of Federal
Government---Rules of business---Object and scope---Substituting an Act of
Parliament or law by the Rules---Validity---Rules of Business framed under the
provisions of Art. l99 of the Constitution have a higher status than an ordinary
delegated legislation, as the same have been made on the authority of the
Constitution---Such rules cannot substitute an act of Parliament or law to
determine or affect the rights and duties of citizens ---Whereas law assigns a
function or confers a power on the Federal Government, the Rules of Business
merely prescribe as to which of the Ministries or Divisions has to perform
those functions and exercise those powers and in what manner.

Case
MUHAMMAD AFTAB VS K.B.C.A.
Interpretation of Statutes ---- Regulation framed under statute---Status and
scope---Regulations framed by Authority, even with approval of Provincial
Government cannot enlarge scope of the statute itself-- delegated legislation
has to remain within parameters of statute itself.
Citation Name: 1998 MLD 1411 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Case
MEHRAM ALI VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
delegated legislation --- Excessive delegation---Conditional Legislation by the
Government within the scope of the parent Act is ordinarily not taken to be a
case of excessive delegation.
Citation Name: 1998 PTD 2567 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark

this Case
MESSRS SPINTEX LIMITED VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF AZAD
JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MIRPUR CIRCLE, MIRPUR
Legislation--TERM ,
Legislation --- delegated legislation---Principles---Enactment of a law providing
for automatic legislation of a future law framed by another legislation--
Sustainability.

Case
MEHRAN MOTOR CAR CO. LTD. VS DAEWOO HONG KONG LTD.
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--112 ,
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 Art. 112-Notification judicial notice of---
Esseitods--Notification under statute, unless carrying delegated legislation,
unlike notified statute itself, way required to be proved rather than be taken
judicial notice of---Provision of Art. 112, Qanun-e-Shahadat postulates judicial
notice only of "all Pakistan caws' omitting from its scope exercise of executive
functions under such laws.

Case
FARHAT NASREEN VS MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
Law--TERM ,
Law Connotation---Word "law" means not only statutory and delegated
legislation but also judge-made law.
Citation Name: 1995 PTD 997 SUPREME-COURT-INDIA Bookmark this Case

BHARAT HARI SINGHANIA VS COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
Rules--Rule ,
--- Provision requiring laying rules before Parliament---Effect---Rules do not
acquire status of statute---Continue to be delegated legislation---Indian
Wealth Tax Act, 1957, S. 46(4).
Citation Name: 1995 PTD 624 INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN

Bookmark this Case
I.TA. NO.3468/KB OF 1993-94, DECIDED ON 12TH DECEMBER, 1994. VS I.TA.
NO.3468/KB OF 1993-94, DECIDED ON 12TH DECEMBER, 1994.
Vested Rights--TERM ,
Vested Rights ----Procedure---No one has a vested right in a procedure until
and unless there is statutory provision in that behalf---If under the specified
provision of legislation or a subordinate legislation a particular procedure is
required to be observed then an authority saddled with the responsibility of
executing the law is bound to observe the procedure as contained in the main
statute or rules--If, however, no specific procedure is enacted in Act of
Parliament or in exercise of delegated legislation then no Court or Tribunal is
authorised to prescribe a procedure and give it the force of statutory law or
rule.

GOVT. OF PAKISTAN VS MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
Customs Act 1969--18 ,
---- S.18(2)---Regulatory duty --- Abstension of authority from subjecting a
particular item of goods from regulatory duty at a given time, or for that
matter, at the commencement of the financial year, does not create any
vested right in favour of any party who may have entered into contracts on
that basis because authority to levy the duty is the sovereign power of the
State by the device of delegated legislation for imposing a tax --- Doctrine of
promissory estoppel would not be attracted.
Citation Name: 1992 PLD 47 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark

this Case
MAQBOOL AHMAD LEHRI VS GOVT. OF PAKISTAN
Legislation--TERM ,
delegated legislation --- Concept of delegated legislation to an Authority in
fact aims that while framing rules or regulations it must not subvert nor do
anything contrary to existing statutes.
Citation Name: 1990 CLC 171 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark

this Case
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN VS MUHAMMAD KHAN
Legislation--TERM ,
Legislation ---delegated legislation---Power to legislate restrospectively---
Subordinate legislation by a delegated legislative authority cannot be given
retrospective effect unless, the statute under which delegation of legislative
power was made, expressly provided as such---Where the statute does not
delagate legislative power to the Government to legislate retrospectively,
Government would be deemed to have been conferred jurisdiction of
prospective legislation.
Citation Name: 1989 MLD 3935 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Case
NAGHMA RASHID VS B.Z. UNIVERSITY
Educational Institutions--TERM ,
Educational Institutions --- Admission-Candidates otherwise were qualified to
get admission on the basis of subjects which they had studied but as
admissions were running late by a year, admissions in 1987:88 Session were
reserved only for those students who had graduated prior to one year from
petitioners and petitioners were asked to wait till admission for next Session
1988-89--Petitioners accordingly applied for admission in Session 1988-89,
but admission was denied to them on ground that one of the subjects added
in Prospectus of University which had been made necessary for admission in
Session 1988-89 had not been studied by them and subject which previously
was compulsory for admission to that course which petitioners had studied
had been dropped from list of subjects permissible for admission--Act of
Educational Institution in framing Prospectus in such a way, held , was unfair,
unreasonable, oppressive, discriminatory, unjust and arbitrary---Such
Prospectus which was not a piece of legislation or a piece of delegated
legislation but which in fact was only manifestation of executive policy
devised by Executive Authority in regulation of a matter not covered by any
legislative field, could be struck down--Petitioners candidates who already
stood qualified for admission and who had a superior merit to those already
admitted, were directed to be admitted in their respective courses.
Citation Name: 1989 PTD 7 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case

ZAFAR ALI BHUTTO VS HABIBULLAH SIAL
Notification--TERM ,
--- Retrospective effect--Validity of--Authority empowered to issue
notification in the nature of delegated legislation would not be competent to
give retrospective effect to such notification ether expressly or by implication.

Case
MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS BORDR AREA COMMITTEE
Martial Law Regulation (Zone B) 1959 No. 9--RGLN. ,
Martial Law Regulation (Zone B) 1959 No. 9 Sched. III, Condition No.9--Power
to confer proprietary rights stipulated in Condition No.9 of Sched. III to
Regulation, which was not a piece of subordinate legislation, but was integral
part of Regulation itself framed by parent law giver--Argument that delegated
legislation was ultra vires on account of its having travelled beyond the scope
of principal enactment, held, was not attracted to the case--Condition No. 9 of
Schedule III of Regulation does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
Citation Name: 1988 CLC 8 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

P.G. BRAGANZA VS BORDER AREA ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE
Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975--3 ,
Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 ---Sched. III,
Condition No. 9--Condition No. 9 stipulating power to confer proprietary
rights is not a piece of subordinate legislation but an integral part of the
Regulation itself framed by the parent law-giver--Argument that a delegated
legislation was ultra vires on account of its having travelled beyond the scope
of the principal enactment, was not, therefore, attracted--Condition No. 9 of
Sched. III of Regulation, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity on
that count.

Case
FRIENDS MUTUAL CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY (REGD.) VS SHAMIM
AFZA
Co-Operative Societies Act 1925--71 ,
Co-Operative Societies Act 1925 --S. 71--Rule-making power of Government--
Rule repugnant to principal Act whether could be made--Rules being in the
nature of subordinate or delegated legislation, held, could not be made in
repugnance to the provisions of the principal Act itself.

Case
HYESONS SUGAR MILLS LTD. VS DIRECTOR-GENERAL/COMMISSIONER, EXCISE
&TAXATION
Sindh Abkari Act 1878--35-A , Sindh Excise Manual--TERM ,
-- S. 35-A-Sind Excise Manual-1, sub-para. (13) of para. 71Giving of powers to
Commissioner, Excise and Taxation to frame rules, not doubted-New levy,
held, could not be imposed by such delegated legislation - Sub-para. (13) of
para. 71 of Sind Excise Manual-I, whereunder excise duty could be imposed
on any wastage, which in opinion of Director, Excise and Taxation is excessive
or not properly accounted for, held, ultra vires of powers of Commissioner.
Your Search returned total 126 records from 100 - 138
Case
HYESONS SUGAR MILLS LTD. VS DIRECTOR-GENERAL/COMMISSIONER, EXCISE
&TAXATION
Sindh Abkari Act 1878--35-A , Sindh Excise Manual--TERM ,
-- S. 35-A-Sind Excise Manual-1, sub-para. (13) of para. 71Giving of powers to
Commissioner, Excise and Taxation to frame rules, not doubted-New levy,
held, could not be imposed by such delegated legislation - Sub-para. (13) of
para. 71 of Sind Excise Manual-I, whereunder excise duty could be imposed
on any wastage, which in opinion of Director, Excise and Taxation is excessive
or not properly accounted for, held, ultra vires of powers of Commissioner.

ZAIBTUN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. VS C.B.R
Legislation--TERM ,
Delegation of legislative powers-Legislature can delegate authority to
subordinate or outside authorities for carrying laws into effect and operation -
Such power of delegation, inherent and ancillary to legislation-Legislature
retains legislative powers intact to do away with agency-Constitutional theory
underlying doctrine of impossible delegation of legislative power, held, not
applicable-Constitution does not lay down and prescribe limits within which
such delegation permissible-Competency of Legislature to delegate its power
to be determined by Courts in exercise of their inherent judicial poxer under
Constitution-No uniform test to determine competency of Legislature to
delegate such power-Constitution of Pakistan (1962).-[delegated legislation].

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/SALES TAX, ZONE 'A', LAHORE VS
KAUSARICE FACTORY, LYALLPUR
Sales Tax Act 1951--17 ,
-- S. 17 (1) read with Notifications Nos, S. R. O. 2 dated 2I-1-1956 & No. 291
dated 1-7-1959-Right already accrued-Cannot be taken away by giving
retrospective effect to delegated legislation-Respondent-assessee acquiring
vested right under a notification and not liable under such notification to pay
tax-Subsequent notification making assessee liable to pay such tax, held,
could not adversely affect rights of assessee respondents.-[Interpretation of
statutes]

Case
CORNING (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI VS KARACHI GAS CO. LTD., KARACHI
Legislation--TERM ,
delegated legislation--Subordinate delegated authority -- Cannot mate roles
or Issue notification under a statute so as to give them retrospective effect
unless statute itself grants such power.-(Delegated authority.

Case
S.M. ALIAS & SONS LTD. VS CONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD
Legislation--TERM ,
delegated legislation-Delegation of "essential" legislative powerHeld, not
permissible-Question whether essential legislative power delegated or not- To
be resolved in light of peculikr circumstances of each case-Court'can nullify
action if authority found to have been abused or exceeded as to amount to
usurpation of essential legislative power.

Case
MUSAHIB ALI VS THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--1 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)
1898--496 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--5 , Defence of Pakistan
Rules 1971--RULE ,
S. 210 read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 1, 5(2) & 498?
Anticipatory bail?Provisions of Code applicable to proceedings under Defence
of Pakistan Rules, 1971 subject to any provisions to contrary contained in
Rules?Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971 being framed under Defence of
Pakistan Ordinance (XXX of 1971), S. 3, Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971, held,
contrary provisions within meanings of S. 5(2), Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898?Rule 210 though inconsistent with S. 498, Cr. P. C. yet not exhaustive of
cases wherein bail permissible under Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971?
Superior Courts having always granted bail in appropriate cases under
Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971, Legislature presumed to be aware of such
decisions?Legislature would have made express provision taking away such
power of superior Courts if alone it were so intended?Defence of Pakistan
Rules being delegated legislation to be construed strictly Ambiguity, however,
if any, rule to be construed in favour of jurisdiction of s

Case
MUSAHIB ALI VS THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--1 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)
1898--496 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--5 , Defence of Pakistan
Rules 1971--RULE ,

THE STATE VS MUHAMMAD YOUSUF
Reformatory Schools Act 1897--11 , Reformatory Schools Act 1897--9 ,

Case
VS
Legislation--TERM ,
Legislation Fiscal legislation-delegated legislation could not be struck down for
want of standards unless it leads to palpable abuse or true abdication by
Legislature of its legislative authority.
Citation Name: 1969 PLD 1 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case

DACCA PICTURE PALACE LTD VS PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISIRY
OF EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
Legislation--TERM ,
Legislation --Conditional and delegated legislation--Distinction-Legislation
conditional when absolute legislation to be made effective in particular area
on happening of a contingency--Legislation delegated when it involves
delegation of rule-making power itself.

PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN VS SIRAJUL HAQ PATWARI
S. 57 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Arts. 158(4) & 242-Section 57
does not involve any idea of delegated legislation or of the Legislature
effacing itself-Deals with merely administrative functions-Interpretation of
statutes-Legislature, keeping itself within limits of its competence can
legislate in accepted "forms" of legislation either "directly or referentially,
absolutely or conditionally"-Section 57 valid legislation.

SHERAJUL HAQUE PATWARI VS SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHANDPUR
delegated legislation Principles governing delegated legislation resolve
themselves into:----

Case
MUHAMMAD USMAN VS SETTLEMENT AUTHORITIES
----delegated legislation - Authority Issuing legislation to adopt ways and
means to have legislation known to public.

Case
MUHAMMAD USMAN VS SETTLEMENT AUTHORITIES
Legislation--TERM ,
Legislation ----delegated legislation - Authority Issuing legislation to adopt
ways and means to have legislation known to public.

TIGER WIRE PRODUCTS LTD VS SALES TAX OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE I,
DACCA
Sales Tax Act 1951 Ss. 3, 4, 7 & 8-Provisions neither ultra vires the
Constitution (1962) as amounting to delegated legislation nor violative of
Fundamental Right No. 15 as being discriminatory-Constitution of Pakistan
(1962), Arts. 48 & 131-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 6, Fundamental
Right No. 15.

DACCA
Constitution of Pakistan 1962--131 , Constitution of Pakistan 1962--48 , Sales
Tax Act 1951--4 , Sales Tax Act 1951--8 ,
Ss. 3, 4, 7 & 8-Provisions neither ultra vires the Constitution (1962) as
amounting to delegated legislation nor violative of Fundamental Right No. 15
as being discriminatory-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Arts. 48 & 131-
Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 6, Fundamental Right No. 15.

DACCA
Constitution of Pakistan 1962--131 , Constitution of Pakistan 1962--48 , Sales
Tax Act 1951--4 , Sales Tax Act 1951--8 ,
Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 6, Fundamental Right No. 15.
Citation Name: 1965 PTD 494 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case

TIGER WIRE PRODUCTS LTD. VS SALES TAX OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE I,
DACCA
Sales Tax Act 1951 Ss. 3, 4, 7 & 8-Provisions neither ultra vires the
Constitution (1962) as amounting to delegated legislation nor violative of
Fundamental Right No. 15 as being discriminatory-Constitution of Pakistan
(1962), Arts. 48 & 131-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 6, Fundamental
Right No. 15.-

DACCA
Constitution of Pakistan 1962--6 , Fundamental Rights--TERM , Sales Tax Act
1951--4 , Sales Tax Act 1951--8 ,
Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 6, Fundamental Right No. 15.-

DACCA
1951--4 , Sales Tax Act 1951--8 ,

DACCA
1951--4 , Sales Tax Act 1951--8 ,

HAJI GHULAM ZAMIN VS A. B. KHONDKAR
Arts. 131 & 132 -Legislation-delegated legislation-Legislature cannot abdicate
its function - Can after enunciating "principles and standards" delegate
functions essential to effective exercise of legislative power Cannot "efface
itself" or "delegate all its functions"-[Inter Provincial Trade Ordinance (IV of
1964)].

Constitution of Pakistan 1962 Arts. 131 & 132 -Legislation-delegated
legislation-Legislature cannot abdicate its function - Can after enunciating
"principles and standards" delegate functions essential to effective exercise of
legislative power Cannot "efface itself" or "delegate all its functions"-[Inter
Provincial Trade Ordinance (IV of 1964)].
delegated legislation Delegated exercise of statutory power stands on footing
of "bye-law"-Should not be unreasonable or manifestly against spirit of
delegation-[Maxwell, 11th Ed., p. 291; Stiles v. Galinski (1904) 1 K B 621 ref.]

THE STATE VS MUHAMMAD RIAZ-UL-HAQ
Basic Democracies Order 1959--45 ,
S. 29 read with Basic Democracies Order (18 of 1959), S. 45-Provisions of S.45,
Basic Democracies Order, 1959 applicable mutatis mutandis to servants of
Municipal Committees-Effect of two provisions read together-Simple case of
legislation by reference not of delegated legislation-Appointment, dismissal
etc, of Municipal employees-Governed by Municipal Administration
Ordinance, 1960 and Rules made thereunder, not by Basic Democracies
Order, 1959 and Rules framed under it.

SHEIKH FAZAL AHMAD.,MST. BARKAT BIBI VS RAJA ZIAULLAH KHAN, P. C. S.
CLAIMS COMMIS.SIONER, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE
Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act 1956--18 ,
Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act 1956 S.7(4) read with S. 18-
Review-Limitation-Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Rules, 1955, r. 6
as amended by Central Government in 1963, allowing review of order of "any
of his predecessor-in-office" after "the said ninety days", giving retrospective
effect to amendment-Dower to legislate with retrospective effect not
included in power of subordinate legislation---Section 18, giving rule-making
powers to Government, does not support power of retrospective legislation-
Amendment to extent of retrospective operation, held, invalid-delegated
legislation---Limitation prescribed by rules for review of own order intended
to apply also to order of "predecessor- in-office"- [Rahmat Ullah v. Deputy
Settlement Commissioner P L D 1963 S C 633 and Muhammad Tufail v.
Muhammad Ramzan and others P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 201 ref.]

Limitation--TERM , Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Rules 1955--
RULE , Review--TERM ,
S.7(4) read with S. 18-Review-Limitation-Registration of Claims (Displaced
Persons) Rules, 1955, r. 6 as amended by Central Government in 1963,
allowing review of order of "any of his predecessor-in-office" after "the said
ninety days", giving retrospective effect to amendment-Dower to legislate
with retrospective effect not included in power of subordinate legislation---
Section 18, giving rule-making powers to Government, does not support
power of retrospective legislation-Amendment to extent of retrospective
operation, held, invalid-delegated legislation---Limitation prescribed by rules
for review of own order intended to apply also to order of "predecessor- in-
office"- [Rahmat Ullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner P L D 1963 S C 633
and Muhammad Tufail v. Muhammad Ramzan and others P L D 1958 S C
(Pak.) 201 ref.]

(Pak.) 201 ref.]

(Pak.) 201 ref.]

SYED ABDUR RASHID VS KHAWAJA GHULAM HUSSAIN RATHORE, DEPUTY
CLAIMS COMMISSIONER
Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons)------Act (ill of 1956), S. 5 read with
S. 2 (3)-Nature of "claim" filed under Act--Merely "assertion" of a right to
property "in India"-Displaced person preferring "claim" not entitled "as of
right" to get properties in Pakistan equivalent to properties left in
India-"Claim" not in nature of "right or interest in property" which could
devolve "according to personal law of deceased" - Central Government
competent to determine "by instructions" who can be "rightful claimant"
from among category of displaced persons-Children of person dying in life-
time of his or her father-,"Rightful claimants" to share of their deceased
father-Claims Commissioner's Memo. No. II-C (2)/J/57/7359, dated 11th May
1957-Not delegated legislation Whether affected by Art. 25, Constitution of
Pakistan (1956)-Memo does not touch any "vested right"-No question of,
retrospective application of Memo.-West Punjab Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) Application Act (IX of 1948).

CLAIMS COMMISSIONER
West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1948--
PREAMBLE ,
-----Act (ill of 1956), S. 5 read with S. 2 (3)-Nature of "claim" filed under Act--
Merely "assertion" of a right to property "in India"-Displaced person
preferring "claim" not entitled "as of right" to get properties in Pakistan
equivalent to properties left in India-"Claim" not in nature of "right or interest
in property" which could devolve "according to personal law of deceased" -
Central Government competent to determine "by instructions" who can be
"rightful claimant" from among category of displaced persons-Children of
person dying in life-time of his or her father-,"Rightful claimants" to share of
their deceased father-Claims Commissioner's Memo. No. II-C (2)/J/57/7359,
dated 11th May 1957-Not delegated legislation Whether affected by Art. 25,
Constitution of Pakistan (1956)-Memo does not touch any "vested right"-No
question of, retrospective application of Memo.-West Punjab Muslim
Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (IX of 1948).

CLAIMS COMMISSIONER
Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act 1956 Registration of Claims
(Displaced Persons)------Act (ill of 1956), S. 5 read with S. 2 (3)-Nature of
"claim" filed under Act--Merely "assertion" of a right to property "in India"-
Displaced person preferring "claim" not entitled "as of right" to get properties
in Pakistan equivalent to properties left in India-"Claim" not in nature of "right
or interest in property" which could devolve "according to personal law of
deceased" - Central Government competent to determine "by instructions"
who can be "rightful claimant" from among category of displaced persons-
Children of person dying in life-time of his or her father-,"Rightful claimants"
to share of their deceased father-Claims Commissioner's Memo. No. II-C
(2)/J/57/7359, dated 11th May 1957-Not delegated legislation Whether
affected by Art. 25, Constitution of Pakistan (1956)-Memo does not touch any
"vested right"-No question of, retrospective application of Memo.-West
Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (IX of 1948).

Case
SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN VS (1) REGISTRATION OFFICER, C. I. D., KARACHI (2)
PAKISTAN
Foreigners Act 1946--10 , Foreigners Act 1946--2 , Foreigners Act 1946--3 ,
cl. 7---Pawenda tribe-Member cannot claim to be treated as higher than a
"nomad" under Notification dated 19-10-1954-Open to Government not to
permit stay in Pakistan beyond certain date-Not obliged to give reasons--
Foreigners Act (XXXI of 1946), Ss. 2 (a), 3 & 10 --- Foreigners Order, 1951, not
"delegated legislation"--Not invalid--[Soho Gyanchandani v. Crown P L D 1952
F C 29 considered].

Case
SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN VS (1) REGISTRATION OFFICER, C. I. D., KARACHI (2)
PAKISTAN
Foreigners Order 1951--PREAMBLE ,
Foreigners Order 1951 cl. 7---Pawenda tribe-Member cannot claim to be
treated as higher than a "nomad" under Notification dated 19-10-1954-Open
to Government not to permit stay in Pakistan beyond certain date-Not
obliged to give reasons--Foreigners Act (XXXI of 1946), Ss. 2 (a), 3 & 10 ---
Foreigners Order, 1951, not "delegated legislation"--Not invalid--[Soho
Gyanchandani v. Crown P L D 1952 F C 29 considered].

Case
MESSRS SH. MIAN MUHAMMAD ALLAH BAKHSH LTD. PROPRIETORS OF
PAKISTAN FLOUR AND OIL MILLS VS THE GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN
West Pakistan Flour Mills Control Order 1959--ORDER ,
West Pakistan Flour Mills Control Order 1959 West Pakistan Flour Mills
(Control) Order, 1959-Intra vires of S. 3, West Pakistan Foodstuff's (Control)
Act (XX of 1958)Not open to objection on score of "delegated legislation"-
West Pakistan Flour Mills (Control) Order, 1959, S. 4 (b) (e)-Notification by
Director Food, requiring particular Flour Mill to carry out "24 hours milling of
Atta daily"-Within competence of Director-Notification No. SOF (Ill)-1 v II/60,
dated 20-8-1960C. M. L. A.'s Martial Law Regulation No. 77:

Case
ALI AKBAR SHAH VS THE STATE
West Punjab Cotton Control Rules 1949--RULE ,
----S. 30 (o) (p) read with r. 26 (S), West Punjab Cotton Control Rules,
1949Rule 26 (5), prescribing punishment for failure to pay cotton fee ultra
vires-Not covered by rule-making power provided by S. 30 (o) (p)-Rule
defective also as delegated legislation.

Case
ALI AKBAR SHAH VS THE STATE
West Punjab Cotton (Control) Act 1949--30 ,
West Punjab Cotton (Control) Act 1949 ----S. 30 (o) (p) read with r. 26 (S),
West Punjab Cotton Control Rules, 1949Rule 26 (5), prescribing punishment
for failure to pay cotton fee ultra vires-Not covered by rule-making power
provided by S. 30 (o) (p)-Rule defective also as delegated legislation.

EAST AND WEST STEAMSHIP CO. VS PAKISTAN
Control of Shipping Act 1947--- ,
Control of Shipping Act 1947 Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 5-Equality before
law--Whether violated by conferment of vast unguided power on an officer-
Whether such power can be questioned as falling within the rule against
delegated legislation-Control of Shipping Act (XXVI of 1947)-Validity.

Delegated Legislation Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Delegated Legislation Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Delegated Legislation Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Note: First of All go through File A to Z (Link is given in

description) and consider:

Case Law Study on “Delegated Legislation”

Delegated legislation---Principles---Discretion, exercise of---Scope---

Necessity of Delegated Legislation:

Scope of “Delegated Legislation”:

Citation Name: 2002 CLC 1819 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Interpretation of Statutes ---- Power to issue Notification, Orders, Rules or

---Subordinate legislation---Effect---Rules are in the category of subordinate

Subordinate and delegated legislation---Scope--- Rules and regulations are

Subordinate and delegated legislation---Construction---Invalidity of delegated

Constitutional Provisions Dealing with Delegated Legislation:

History & Retrospective Effect of Delegated Legislation:

Legislation ---delegated legislation---Power to legislate

Outline of “Delegated Legislation”

 Delegated Legislation cannot be made by bypassing the statutory

x. Bad Delegated Legislation

Citation Name: 2021 PTD 892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2021 PTD 892 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2021 PLD 343 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2021 PLD 343 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2021 PTD 731 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2021 PTD 232 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2021 PLD 144 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PLD 1 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PLD 1 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PTD 752 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2020 PTD 752 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2020 PTD 752 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2020 CLC 1784 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2019 SCMR 1887 SUPREME-COURT-OF-UK Bookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 SCMR 282 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 PTD 484 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 PTD 452 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2019 PLD 515 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2019 PLD 206 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2019 PTD 1368 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2019 MLD 1861 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2018 PTD 1729 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2018 PTD 1716 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2018 PTD 1869 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2018 PLD 603 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2018 YLR 1785 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2018 YLR 222 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2018 PLC(CS) 907 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2018 PLC(CS) 619 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2018 PLC(CS) 619 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2017 SCMR 1070 SUPREME-COURT-OF-CANADA Bookmark

Citation Name: 2017 PLD 360 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2017 PLD 289 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2017 PLD 289 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2017 PTD 1803 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2017 PTD 130 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2017 YLR 2155 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this

Citation Name: 2017 PLC(CS)N 66 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2016 PLD 808 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2016 PLD 237 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this