Ten reportable judgments across the 9, 10 and 11 September 2026 upload window (with 8 September carried forward) — one from the Federal Constitutional Court, two from the Supreme Court, one from the Lahore High Court and six from the Sindh High Court (the Islamabad High Court returned no in-window entries).

Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan

• Muhammad Abdul Qadoos v. Province of Punjab — a constitutional petition cannot be used to circumvent limitation, and action taken under statutory authority is not “executive action” merely because an executive functionary takes it; a time-barred claim under the statutory remedies of section 99-B Cr.P.C. and section 20 of the Press Registration Ordinance cannot be relabelled “constitutional” and brought under Article 199. Petitions dismissed and leave refused on laches, the Lahore High Court affirmed.

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• Province of Punjab v. Bashir — the statutory opportunity to show cause before resumption of colony land under section 32(2) of the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912 is a substantive condition, not a formality, and no preferential treatment in condonation of delay is available to a Government department. Appeal dismissed; a 4,402-day delay refused and the connected petition dismissed as time-barred (equality before the law requires the State to be treated as an ordinary litigant).
• Noor Ahmed v. Mst. Rashida Bibi — land permanently settled on a displaced person vests absolutely in that person under section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, and an unchallenged allotment order cannot be circumvented by a suit to cancel the gift deed made under it. Both appeals allowed; the collaterals’ suit dismissed and the disputed 3/8 mutation cancelled.

Lahore High Court

• Mst. Misbah Bibi v. Additional Sessions Judge — section 491 Cr.P.C. is a summary, protective jurisdiction for interim custody and cannot be used to impose surety and travel restrictions curtailing the liberty of the parent to whom custody is restored; regulation of a minor’s movement belongs to the Guardian Court. Petition allowed; the surety and territorial-restriction conditions set aside.

Sindh High Court

• Hosh Muhammad Panhwar v. Province of Sindh & connected petitions — the saving in General Post Office v. Muhammad Jalal protects appointments actually made, but a forged instrument is no appointment at all; forgery, however, cannot be found on affidavits without notice and hearing. Petitions disposed of with a direction to constitute an inquiry committee to determine, on notice and forensic examination, the authenticity of the disputed appointment documents within sixty days (deceased-employee-quota clerks).
• Karimullah Khaskheli v. Province of Sindh — a pension may be withheld only upon conviction for a serious crime or a finding of grave misconduct reached after due process, and an FIR registered after retirement is no warrant for withholding anything (and no departmental proceedings lie more than a year after retirement). Petition allowed; withholding of pension, GP Fund, commutation, LPR encashment and pay declared unlawful and release directed.
• Ghulam Shabir v. Federation of Pakistan — a disputed electricity bill is for the Electric Inspector under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act 1910 and the departmental complaint mechanism, not constitutional jurisdiction; but the existence of an alternate remedy does not entitle the authority to leave a grievance unattended. Petition dismissed in limine, with an observation that SEPCO must decide any duly submitted application with reasons.
• M/s Pak National Dates v. Regional Development Finance Corporation — Order XVII Rule 3 CPC requires judgment on the pleadings and record after the party has had its opportunity (a present witness must be examined), and section 11 cannot be invoked on the strength of a same-day judgment in which no independent determination was made. Both banking judgments set aside and the suits remanded for decision within three months.
• Muhammad Azeem Khuhro v. Province of Sindh — nine directions for judicial supervision of absconding and proclaimed offenders (sections 87, 88, 512 Cr.P.C.; cases fixed at least twice a month, not consigned to dormant files), and the limits of Article 199 where sections 22-A and 22-B provide a remedy. Petition dismissed in the terms of the directions issued.
• Ramesh Lal v. Province of Sindh — a licence authorises the regulated activity subject to its conditions; it confers no right to store beyond the prescribed limits and no immunity from lawful inspection, search and seizure under the Sindh Food Grains (Licensing Control) Order 1957. Petition dismissed as misconceived, the burden lying on the licence holder to produce stock registers, with a caution that inspection and seizure must follow due procedure and not cause hardship to within-limit traders.