specific time constraint was set out in S.25 in which the power to issues notification by the Federal Government was to be exercised---Equitable principle of "reasonable time

Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 247 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ALI GOHAR ZAIDI
Side Opponent : HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION
Ss. 41 & 42---Constitution of Pakistan, Art 212(3)---Leave to appeal was sought against judgment passed by Service Tribunal, whereby miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner against abatement of his appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction---Claim of the petitioner was that Registrar of the Service Tribunal had no authority to declare that appeal had been abated; and that the Tribunal was required to pass separate order after providing opportunity to the parties---Petitioner further contended that Service Rules of the employer Corporation being statutory, his petition was maintainable before Service Tribunal---Validity---Section 41 of House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952, provided that Government could make Rules consistent with said Act for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act---Section 42 of said Act had empowered the Board to make regulations consistent with the Act to provide for all matters for which provision was necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provision of the Act including Regulations in respect of the terms and conditions of service---Rule making power had been conferred upon the Board for the management and control of day to day business of the Corporation---Impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal being well reasoned, called no interference by the Supreme Court---Leave to appeal was refused.

Citation Name : 2011 PLD 842 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION through Chairman
Side Opponent : Rais HABIB AHMED
Connotation---Creation of vested right in favour of the party, who would benefit due to the abatement ---Where the legislature in its wisdom had made the course of abatement conditional, or subject to any limitations or where it was provided to save, resurrect or exclude any category of proceedings from the realm thereof, the abatement shall not take effect otherwise than, as strictly prescribed by the law.

Citation Name : 2011 PLD 842 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION through Chairman
Side Opponent : Rais HABIB AHMED
S. 25---abatement of pending proceedings---No specific time constraint was set out in S.25 in which the power to issues notification by the Federal Government was to be exercised---Equitable principle of "reasonable time "---Applicability---Scope---If the object of law envisaged that the act/function could be performed at any point of time, the rule should not be resorted to, but if it was otherwise, the principle of "reasonable time" should be applied to meet the ends of justice---Principles.

Citation Name : 2011 PLD 842 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION through Chairman
Side Opponent : Rais HABIB AHMED
S. 25---abatement of pending proceedings---Power enabling the Federal Government to issue notification was neither prior to the Act nor simultaneous therefor, because the syntax of expression "directs otherwise" appearing in S.25 was not in relation to the past or present, but after the law had taken effect---Principles.

Citation Name : 2011 PLD 842 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION through Chairman
Side Opponent : Rais HABIB AHMED
S. 25---abatement of pending proceedings---Power of Federal Government---Scope---Legislature intended to abate all the pending cases with an immediate effect, but created a narrow exception enabling the federal government to save, resurrect etc. certain case(s) from the abatement by strictly and squarely following the object for which the abatement was enforced and not otherwise---While doing so the government could not be overwhelmed by its caprice, whim and subjective selection, having choice of inexhaustible and endless time; rather could only exercise the power within a reasonable time, as where no time limitation is provided by any statute for certain action which has the effect of impairing and pulverizing the vested right of a person, the court was empowered to invoke and impose the above rule for the carrying out such an action---Government was not invested with unbridled and absolute power to pick and choose any case at any point of time, without assigning any reason, or for invalid reasons, whereas such power was encompassed by and subject to the principles of, 'past and closed transaction', how, when and to what an extent a 'vested right' could be effected or obliterated; and of course the rule 'reasonable time'.