General Clauses Act, 1895

General Clauses Act, 1895

PREAMBLE    (n) An introductory statement in a Constitution, Statute, or other document explaining the document’s basis and objection esp. a statutory; esp. a statutory recital of the inconvenience for which the statute is designed to provide a remedy.
(Black’s Law Dictionary)

RECITAL        An account or description of fact or thing (recital of the events leading upto the accident); A preliminary statement in a Contract or deed explaining the background of the transaction or showing the existence of particular facts ( the recitals in the settlement agreement should describe the underlying dispute;
    “The parties may wish to begin intentions. Often they do this through recitals which were traditionally introduced by “Whereas”, but can simply state the background without this formality”

“Scott J. Burnham, “Contract Drafting Guidebook (2nd ed.1992).
(Black’s Law Dictionary)

Section 20

-    Power of court to recall or modify its order – scope – where an order was patently illegal and unlawful, then Court in the interest of justice could exercise such power.

Miskeen Ahmad  Vs.  Sajida
2012 CLC 160 (Peshawar)
Section-24-A

-        Orders to be passed by application of mind and giving special reasons even if they are administrative orders.

Javed Riaz
Versus
Lahore Development Authority through Director General and 3 others.
2005 CLC 1128
Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada and others
1999 SCMR 2744
Ahmad Din v. Illaqa Magistrate and others
2002 YLR 1049

Messrs Airport Support Services’s case
1998 SCMR 2268

C.D.A V. Zahid Iqbal.
PLD 2004 SC 99
Capital Development Authority v. Shaheen Farooq
2007 SCMR 1328
Ashiq Ali v. Govt. of Punjab
PLJ 2007 Lahore 1056
Mushahid Ali v. Bahauddin Zakariya University
2007 MLD 1898

Petroson corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. V. Oil and Gas Development Company Ltd.
2007 CLD 578(g)

Bawa Mian Qazi v. State
2007 YLR 2264
Collectorate of Customs (Preventive), Karachi v. Abdul Salam Khan
2007 PTD 2500

House Building Finance Corporation v. Muhammad Ali Gohar Zaidi
2007 PLC (C.S.)870(a)
House Building Finance Corporation v. Muhammad Ali Gohar Zaidi
2007 PLC (C.S.)870(e)

Muhammad Din v. Jamal Din
2007 SCMR 1091(c)

Muhammad Zarat Khan v. Federation of Pakistan
PLD 2007 Kar. 597(c)
2007 SCMR 1759(d) = 2007 CLD 1239(d).
Daha Brothers Flying Coach Service, Khanewal
Versus
Tehsil Municipal Administration, Khanewal
2007 CLC 773.

Capital Development Authority v. Shaheen Farooq
2007 SCMR 1328(C)
Muhammad Din v. Aliya Bibi
PLD 2007 Lah.425(a)
2006 SCMR 496 = 2006 PLC (C.S) 355.

Misbah Tabassum v. Government of Punjab
2007 P.Cr.L.J 1776(b)
Petrosin Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. V. Oil and Gas Development Company Ltd
2007 CLD 578(f)

SECTION 24-A

-    S.24-A---Administration of justice---When any Authority or Officer was empowered to make an order or give directions, such power was required to be exercised reasonably, fairly, justly and for advancement of the purpose of enactment and assigning reason for making such order.

Muhammad Daiem Shattari    Versus        State.
2007 YLR 2038(b)
Mrs. Yasmin Abbasey, J
    

-    S.24-A---Administrative order---Scope---Under S.24-A, General Clauses Act, 1897, it is the duty and obligation of competent authority to award minor punishment after application of mind with reasons. Messrs Airport Support Services’s case 1998 SCMR 2268 rel.

Federation of Pakistan    
Versus
Tahir Latif.
2007 SCMR 152 (c)
Mian Shakirullah Jan and Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, JJ

-    S.24-A---Capital Development Authority Ordinance (XXIII of 1960), S.51---Capital Development Authority Conduct of Business Regulation, 1985, Sched. II---Verbal order of Chairman of the Authority cancelling allotment of plot---Validity---Only Chairman had powers to allot and cancel plots, who could not delegate such powers to other officer of the Authority---All orders passed and acts performed by State/public functionaries adversely affecting anyone must be in writing---Verbal order of Chairman would have no sanctity in law for its being alien to process of law and courts. C.D.A. v. Zahid Iqbal PLD 2004 SC 99 rel.

Capital Development Authority    
Versus
Shaheen Farooq
2007 SCMR 1328(a)
Javed Iqbal, Actg. C.J. Abdul Hameed Dogar and Mian Shakirullah Jan, JJ
  
-    S.24-A---Constitution of Pakistan, (1973), Art. 4---Public functionaries---Duty of---It is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide the representation of their subordinates without fear, favour, nepotism, with reasons and within reasonable time as is envisaged by Art. 4 of Constitution read with S.24-A of General Clauses Act.

Ashiq Ali     Versus    Govt. of  Punjab.
PLJ 2007 Lahore 1056(ii)
Cy. Ijaz Ahmed, J.

-    S. 24-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Duty of public functionary---Contention of petitioner was that as appeal filed against impugned order had not been decided by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, petitioner was compelled to file constitutional petition---Since it was the duty of every public functionary to decide/dispose of representation/appeal etc. within a reasonable time; and after application of independent mind by giving reasons, in terms of S. 24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897, constitutional petition was disposed of by the High Court with the direction to the Vice-Chancellor to dispose of appeal of petitioner within one week.

Mushahid Ali    Versus        Bahauddin Zakariya University
2007 MLD 1898
Muhammad Jehangir Arshad, J

-    S. 24-A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 173---Closing of case---Trial Court, after giving details of the case and opinion of Investigating Officer, had observed that the court was satisfied that report of police for closure of the case under S.173, Cr.P.C., being justified, needed to be accepted---No reason whatsoever had been assigned by the court to agree with the report of the police---Court was obliged to have examined report of police and evidence on record and give some reasons concurring with the view taken by Investigating Officer---Under provisions of S. 24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897, every Authority or officer was required to assign reasons for passing an order when a statute authorized him to pass any order or issue any direction---Order thus suffered from material illegality by not complying with provisions of S. 24-A, of General Clauses Act, 1897, the same was set aside and matter was remanded to the Trial Court for examining the statements of witnesses and record and pass appropriate order as deemed fit---Petition was allowed to that extent.

Bawa Mian Qazi    Versus        State
2007 YLR 2264
Rahmat Hussain Jafferi and Muhammad Afzal Soomro, JJ

-    S. 24-A---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.196---Appeal to High Court---Order of the Member, Technical of the Appellate Tribunal, showed that he had not gone through the earlier orders passed by the lower forums and other material available on record, which was explicitly referred to and discussed therein---Mere fact that the respondents had failed to appear in response to the notice, Member Technical of the Appellate Tribunal was not supposed to decide the case against them without recording any valid reasons and without application of mind---Impugned order passed by the Tribunal being violative of provisions of S. 24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897, was set aside, with direction to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh.

Collector, Collectorate of Customs (Preventive), Karachi
Versus
Abdul Salam Khan
2007 PTD 2500
Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Gulzar Ahmed, JJ

-    S. 24-A---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---Preamble---Exercise of power under enactments---Provisions of law contained in S.24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was of binding nature and Income Tax Officer as well as all others in the hierarchy of the tax administration were bound to be fair, just, reasonable and to work for the advancement of the purpose of enactment.
I.T.A No. 934/IB of 2006
2007 PTD (Trib) 1325(c)]
[Khawaja Farooq Saeed. Chairperson and Istataat Ali, Accountant Member)
-    S. 24-A---Judicial application of mind---public functionaries are duty bound to decide applications of citizens after judicial application of mind with reasons. Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others 1998 SCMR 2268 rel.

Muhammad Din     Versus     Jamal Din
2007 SCMR 1091 (c)
Sarder Muhammad Raza Khan and Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, JJ

-    S. 24-A---Public functionaries---Speaking order---Scope---Mandatory and compulsory upon officer to give reasons  as mandated by S.24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897, under which every authority and officer, who is empowered to pass any order or issue any direction, is required to give reasons for passing such order or issuing such direction.

Muhammad Zarat Khan  Versus  Federation of Pakistan
PLD 2007 Kar. 597(c) ]
Muhammad Afzal Soomro and Rahmat Hussain Jafferi, JJ

-    S.24-A---Public functionaries are duty bound to decide applications of citizens after judicial application of mind. Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manger 1998 SCMR 2268 rel.

Wajid Saeed Khan
Versus
Abdul Qadoos Khan Swati
2007 SCMR 1759(d)=2007CLD 1239 (d)
Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Hamid Ali Mirza JJ

-    S.24-A--- West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960), S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.9, 10 15,16, 17 & 199--- Constitutional petition---Detention orders---Involvement of petitioners in anti-social and anti-Government activities---Cyclostyle recommendations of Superintendent of police for passing such orders without referring to any material or evidence collected by Agency---Validity---such activities were neither an offence nor could be equated with action against interest of the State---Such recommendations and impugned orders did not show petitioners’ involvement in an activity detrimental to sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan, public order or morality---Detaining Authority before passing detention order had to satisfy itself about activities of a person prejudicial to public safety or maintenance of public order---
-    Impugned orders had been passed without application of mind about alleged activities by any of petitioners---Provincial Home Secretary, without giving reasons had sent most of the petitioners to jails situated at a distance of 300 Kilometers from  their residences---Such act of Home Secretary was most inhuman and cruel showing his intention to punish petitioners for their alleged activities---High Court for such act of Home Secretary had ordered him to pay from his pocket Rs.20,000/- to each petitioner , but recalled such order at the request of Law Officer giving assurance on his behalf not to act in future in such an inhuman manner---
-    Impugned order violated Art 9,10, 15, 16 and 17 of the Constitution---High Court declared impugned order as without lawful authority and directed forthwith release of petitioners. 2006 SCMR 496=2006 PLC (C.S) 355; Mie Abdul Baqi Baluch v. The Government of Pakistan through the Cabinet Secretary Rawalpindi PLD 1968 SC 3013 and A. K. Khalid P.C.S. Section Officer, Ministry of Interior Governmental Pakistan,

Rawalpindi v. Khan Ghulam Qadir Khan PLD 1962 (W.P.) Lah. 411 rel.
Misbah Tabassum     Versus      Government of Punjab
2007 P CR. L J 1776 (b)
Muhammad Jehangir Arshad, J

-    Tender Notice floated by Oil and Gas Development Company---Letter of Intent issued by company after submission of performance guarantee bond by lowest bidder---Readiness of bidder to sign contract----Return of performance guarantee bond to bidder and re-advertising of tender by company without any reason and without giving opportunity of hearing  to bidder---Validity---Neither statue conferred any power upon company to enter into a contract with bidder nor concluded contract between functionary of State/OGDC had been reached---Section 24-A of General Clauses Act. 1897, thus, would not attract to such case---Principles.

Petrosin Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd.
Versus
Oil and Gas Development company Ltd.
2007 CLD 578 (f)
Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J

-    Even on unjustified reports submitted by the Investigating Officers, Magistrates are not expected to disagree with them by a non-speaking order without any indication about considering the material collected during investigation---Power conferred upon the Magistrate although is administrative in nature and the order passed by him is also an administrative order, yet the same has to be just and judicious and not an arbitrary order.
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf    Versus    State
2006 P CR L J 518
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh