Salim Shah Hoti Advocate vs. The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and Others.

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

[JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT]

W.P No. 3417-P/2023

Salim Shah Hoti, Advocate.................Petitioner Vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others......................................Respondents Present: Mr. Salim Shah Hoti, Advocate/petitioner in person.

Mr. Sana Ullah, Additional Attorney General, for the Federation.

Mr. Asad Jan Durrani, AAG, for the Provincial Government.

Mr. Amir Javed, Advocate / Amicus Curiae.

Mr. Shahid Imran Gigyani, Law Officer, NADRA.

Date of hearing: 02.04.2026

Date of Announcement: 07.05.2026

JU D G M EN T

MUHAMMAD IJAZ KHAN, J.- Through this single judgment, we intend to decide this as well as connected W.P.No. 579-P/2025 titled “Peshawar Bar Association through its President Amjad Ali Khan Marwat .vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others”, as in both of these writ petitions, the vires

of newly enacted Act namely, The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Letters of Administration and Succession Certificates Act, 2021 (hereinafter is to be referred as “The Act of 2021”) and the rules framed thereunder namely, The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Letters of Administration and Succession Certificates Rules, 2021 (hereinafter is to be referred as “The Rules of 2021”) have been challenged.

W.P.No. 3417-P/2023

2.Through this petition, a practicing Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan namely, Salim Shah Hoti has approached to this Court that the provisions of The Act of 2021 and the Rules framed thereunder i.e. The Rules of 2021 are ultra vires to the Constitution as well as to the provisions of The Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter is to be referred as “The Act of 1925”) on the ground firstly that the Provincial Assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was not having legislative competence as the matter of issuance of the letter of Administration and Succession Certificates falls within the domain of the Parliament and secondly that when the Federal

legislation in the form of The Act of 1925 is present in the field then the Provincial Assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has no authority to legislate on the same, therefore, the Provincial Assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was not competent to enact The Act of 2021 being a legislation for an occupied field and as such with this background he has filed the instant writ petition for the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that on acceptance of this Constitutional Petition, the impugned Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Letters of Administration and Succession Act, 2021, and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Letters of Administration of Succession Certificates Rules, 2021 may very graciously be declared as void ab initio, non est, without jurisdiction and ultra vires of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973”.

W.P.No. 579-P/2025

3.The instant writ petition has filed by the Peshawar Bar Association through its President namely, Amjad Ali Khan Marwat, Advocate to the effect that the Peshawar Bar Association is the representative body of the lawyers and as it is the mother Bar Association of the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, therefore, it is keenly interested in maintaining the Rule of Law and the Supremacy of The Constitution. It is further pleaded that the

Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has enacted an Act namely, The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Letters of Administration and Succession Certificates Act, 2021, in which under Section 3 of The Act of 2021, the letter of Administration and Succession Certificates are to be issued by The National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA). It is further pleaded that The Act of 2021 and the rules framed thereunder i.e. The Rules of 2021 have provided a complicated and cumbersome mechanism for the issuance of the Letter of Administration and Succession Certificate and that too by paying of heavy charges and fees. It is further pleaded that Section 10 of The Act of 2021 bars the jurisdiction of all other Courts whereas under Section 12 of The Act of 2021, an overriding effect has been given to The Act of 2021 over any other laws, therefore, the impugned provisions of The Act of 2021 are against Articles 4, 8, 37-A, 37-D and 38 of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter is to be referred as “The Constitution”). It is further pleaded that even various provisions of The Act of 2021 are in conflict inter-se and as such with these

grounds, the Peshawar Bar Association in their writ petition has prayed as under:- “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that on acceptance of the instant writ petition by way of issuing an appropriate writ section 10 and 12 of the KP letters of administration and succession certificates Act 2021 being self-contradictory, unreasonable and against the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution may kindly be declared as ultra vires of the constitution”.

4.Detail arguments of learned counsel for the parties were heard and appended record perused.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly argued firstly that the Provincial Assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was not legally competent to enact The Act of 2021 as the subject of Letters of Administration and Succession Certificates fall within the domain of Parliament (Majlis-e-Shura);

secondly that the Provincial Assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was not constitutionally competent to make the impugned legislation on the same subject i.e. Letters of Administration and Succession Certificates as the Act of 1925 is/was already in field; thirdly that before the impugned enactment the procedure as was provided under the provisions of The Act of 1925 for issuance of the Letters of Administration and Succession

Certificates was simple and more convenient, however, through the impugned legislative instrument the said process has been made more complicated and expensive which is against the mandate of Article 37-D of The Constitution which guarantees a speedy and inexpensive justice to all the citizen of Pakistan and fourthly that since through The Act of 2021 the services of Federal entity i.e. NADRA has been acquired and that too by violating the constitutional provisions as contained under Article 147 of The Constitution.

6.As against this, the learned Amicus Curia namely, Amir Javed, Advocate, though argued the case in detail but precisely his conclusion was that The Act of 2021 has been made by the Provincial Assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for which it was legally competent and that though the procedure as provided under Article 147 of The Constitution qua prior consent of the Federal Government for acquiring the services of the Federal Government or its officers has been provided therein, however, if such consent of the Federal Government has not been obtained but even then an Act of the Provincial Assembly could

not be nullified for that omission as per mandate of Sub-Article (5) of Article 116 of The Constitution.

Learned Amicus Curia further maintained that The Act of 2021 in no way is beyond the competence of the Provincial Assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa nor the same is in violation of any provision of The Constitution. The learned Additional Attorney General namely, Sanaullah as well as the learned Additional Advocate General namely, Asad Jan Durrani also defended The Act of 2021 with almost the same grounds as were submitted and argued by the learned Amicus Curia.

7.Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to first advert to the principle of judicial review under which the constitutional courts could examine the validity of laws when the same are challenged before it. The power of judicial review is not expressly mentioned in Article 199 of The Constitution of Pakistan, however, it has inherent jurisdiction as a guardian of The Constitution to strike down unconstitutional legislation. There is also consensus that when a validity of law is challenged and a writ is filed

before the High Court, seeking judicial review, then the court is, in substance exercising its authority under Article 199(1)(a)(ii) namely the power to issue a writ of certiorari. There is also judicial consensus that so long as the superior courts exist they shall continue to exercise powers and functions within the domain of their jurisdiction and shall also continue to exercise power of judicial review in respect of any law or provision of law which comes for examination before the superior courts1. In Jibendra Kishore Achharyya Chowdhury v. the province of East Pakistan (PLD 1957 SC (Pak.) 9), it was held that any law which abridges or takes away a fundamental right is unconstitutional and could be struck down by the superior courts. In Fauji Foundation v. Shamimur Rehman (PLD 1983 SC 457), the supreme court observed that “when a Court, which is a creature of the Constitution itself, examines the vires of an Act, its powers are limited to examining the legislative competence or to such other limitations as are in the Constitution ;

and while declaring a legislative instrument as Zafar Ali Shah v. Pervaiz Musharraf, Chief Executive of Pakistan (PLD

2000 SC 869)

void, “it is not because the judicial power is superior in degree or dignity to the legislative power" but because it enforces the Constitution as a paramount law either where a legislative instrument is in conflict with the Constitutional provision so as to give effect to it or where the Legislature fails to keep within its constitutional limits. In Zaman Cement Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v.

Central Board of Revenue (2002 SCMR 312), the Supreme Court observed that "the function of the judiciary is not to question the wisdom of Legislature in making a particular law nor it can refuse to enforce it even if the result of it be to nullify its own decisions provided the law is competently made; its vires can only be challenged being violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution and not on the ground that it nullifies the judgment of the superior Courts.” In this judgment, the Supreme Court highlighted that a law may be struck down only if it is violative of a provision of the Constitution, which means that the ground is not confined to the infringement of fundamental rights alone but extends to the violation of any constitutional provision. At the

same time, the Court emphasized that it is not the function of the judiciary to question the wisdom of the Legislature and that, where a law has been

competently enacted, the Court is bound to enforce it. Reliance in this behalf can also be made upon the referred cases2 as mentioned in the footnote.

Keeping insight the aforesaid consistent

jurisprudence developed on the subject so far now this Court would proceed to review, adjudicate and determine that as to whether The Act of 2021 is liable to be struck down on the aforesaid grounds i.e. for the incompetency of the legislative body (The Provincial Assembly of Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa) or the same being in violation of the fundamental rights as enumerated in Chapter I of Part-II (Articles 8 to 28) of The Constitution or any other provision of The Constitution or the

same has caused inconvenience and hardship to

the desirous applicants of letter of administration and succession certificates.

“Ghulam Mustafa Insari .vs. Government of Punjab” (2004 SCMR 1903),”Muhammad Mubeen Us Salam .vs. Federation of Pakistan” (PLD 2006 SC 602), “Watan Party .vs. Federation of Pakistan” (PLD 2006 SC 697), “Dr. Mobashir Hassan .vs. Federation of Pakistan” (PLD 2010 SC 265), “Shahid Pervaiz .vs. Ejaz Ahmad” (2017 SCMR 206), “Messrs Sui Southern Gas Company .vs. Federation of Pakistan” (2018 SCMR 802), “Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation (FGEHF), Islamabad .vs. Malik Ghulam Mustafa” (2021 SCMR 201), General Post Office Islamabad .vs. Muhammad Jalal” (PLD 2024 SC 1276), “Shahtaj Sugar Mills Ltd .vs. Government of Pakistan” (2024 SCMR 1656) and “Federal Government Employees Housing authority .vs. Ednan Syed (PLD 2025 SC 11)

8.As far as the merit of the case is concerned, it would be relevant to mention here that the vires of an enactment could be struck down by a Court of law on two grounds;

I. firstly that where the legislative body have no competency to make the law; and II. secondly that where the impugned enactment abridged or violate any of the fundamental rights enshrined in The Constitution or any other provisions of The Constitution.

As regards the competency of the Provincial Assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to legislate upon and to enact The Act of 2021 is concerned, it would be relevant to mention here that right from the creation of Pakistan till the passing of 18th Amendment in The Constitution in the year, 2010, the subject of “Wills, Intestacy and Succession, save as regards agricultural lands” was included in the concurrent legislative list3 and after the deletion/abolishment of concurrent legislation list4, the said subject (Letters of Administration and Succession Certificates) has not been included in the Federal legislative list and as such before Item No. 6 of the erstwhile Concurrent Legislative List The Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010

the 18th Amendment, it was the domain of both the Federal as well as Provincial Legislative bodies to make legislation regarding the said matter, however, after 18th amendment when the concurrent legislative list has been abolished and when the said subject has not been enlisted in the Federal Legislative list then thereafter the Parliament (Federal legislative body) could not legislate with respect to the ibid subject in view of the bar contained in clause (c) of Article 142 of The Constitution. The said Article being relevant is reproduced below:-

142.Subject-matter of Federal and Provincial laws.

Subject to the Constitution-

(a)[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall have exclusive power to make laws with respect ot any matter in the Federal Legislative List;

(b).......................................

(c)Subject to paragraph (b), a Provincial Assembly shall, and Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) shall not, have power to make laws with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Federal Legislative List;

(d)......................................

The plain reading of the said Article would show that the Parliament have exclusive

jurisdiction to make laws with respect to those matters which are enlisted in Federal Legislative List. Sub-clause(c) of the ibid Article further put a bar on the Parliament / Majlis-e-Shura that it could not legislate with respect to those matters which are not enumerated in the Federal Legislative list and conversely it mandates and empowered the Provincial Assembly that it could legislate on the same, therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of The Constitution, when the subject of “Wills, Intestacy and Succession” is not included in the Federal Legislative list then the same falls within the domain of the Provincial Assembly to legislate upon and as such the Provincial Assembly of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was legally competent to legislate and enact The Act of 2021.

In Ms. Imran Tiwana case5 the Apex Court has held that Power of court to strike down or declare a legislative enactment as void or unconstitutional and Principles to be applied and considered by the court when striking down or declaring a legislative enactment as void or unconstitutional listed. It has further been held that following are the principles Lahore Development Authority through DG and others .vs. Ms. Imran Tiwana and others (2015 SCMR 1739)

which must be applied and considered by the court when striking down or declaring a legislative enactment as void or unconstitutional:

i. There was a presumption in favour of constitutionality and a law must not be declared unconstitutional unless the statute was placed next to the Constitution and no way could be found in reconciling the two;

ii. Where more than one interpretation was possible, one of which would make the law valid and the other void, the Court must prefer the interpretation which favoured validity;

iii. A statute must never be declared unconstitutional unless its invalidity was beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the statute being valid;

iv. Court should abstain from deciding a Constitutional question, if a case could be decided on other or narrower grounds;

v. Court should not decide a larger Constitutional question than was necessary for the determination of the case;

vi. Court should not declare a statute unconstitutional on the ground that it violated the spirit of the Constitution unless it also violated the letter of the Constitution;

vii. Court was not concerned with the wisdom or prudence of the legislation but only with its Constitutionality;

viii. Court should not strike down statutes on principles of republican or democratic government unless those principles were placed beyond legislative encroachment by the Constitution; and

ix. Mala fides should not be attributed to the Legislature.

9.As far as the second ground of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since The Act of 1925 was already in field, therefore, the Provincial Assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was not competent to enact The Act of 2021, however, this objection too is legally and constitutionally not sustainable as the very plain reading of various provisions of The Act of 2021 would show that it has merely provided a procedure for obtaining Letters of Administration and Succession Certificates and it has further make it mandatory that the verification is to be made through digitalized and electronic sources/devices. The Act of 2021 has further provided that the NADRA authorities would carry out the exercise of issuance of Letters of Administration and Succession Certificates in cases in which no factual controversy(s) is/are involved and thus where the desirous person(s) of obtaining Letters

of Administration and Succession Certificates and other legal heirs of the deceased are not in conflict then the same is to be issued straightaway by the NADRA authorities after observing the other codal formalities, however, if there is a dispute between/amongst the legal heirs who are interested in the Letters of Administration and Succession Certificates then in such eventuality the NADRA authorities could not issue the same and for which the party has to approach to the appropriate forum as per mandate of Section 5 of The Act of 2021.

Insofar as the conferment of administrative responsibility through provincial legislation upon a federal body such as NADRA, which is itself a creation of federal law, is concerned, the same is legally permissible. Numerous examples exist in this regard. For instance, the Anti-Narcotics Force is established under The Anti-Narcotics Force Act, 1997, a federal statute, while responsibilities have been conferred upon it through provincial legislation, including The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019.

Moreover, in terms of section 6(3) of the NADRA Ordinance, 2000, the Authority (NADRA) is

vested with the power to execute or supervise the execution of any scheme, proposal, or plan sanctioned by the Federal Government, Provincial Governments, or local authorities. The said provision is reproduced below for ready reference:

(3)The Authority may execute or supervise the execution of any scheme, proposal or plan sanctioned by the Federal Government or concerned Provincial Government and local authority and the Authority may— (a) incur any expenditure, procure plant, machinery, equipment, supplies, services, computer software and hardware and any other materials, equipment or services required for implementing a scheme, proposal or plan or for the performance of its functions; (b) enter into and perform all such contracts as it may consider necessary or expedient including consultancy services contracts; (c) acquire by purchase, lease, exchange or otherwise and dispose of by sale, lease, exchange or otherwise any movable or immovable property or any interest in such property; and (d) do any other thing and exercise any other power supplemental, incidental or consequential to the above functions and powers including the power to take such measures and exercise such powers as the Authority considers necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Ordinance.

10.It would also be relevant to mention here that The Act of 2021 is not exhaustive in all matters which are covered by The Act of 1925, there are many other matters like domicile, marriage, consanguinity, gift, inheritance, will / bequets etc. which have not been touched in The Act of 2021. It is also an admitted fact that The Act of 2021 has neither restricted the applicability

of The Act of 1925 nor has repealed it, therefore, for all legal and practical purposes, both the laws are in field, however, for very limited and restricted purposes i.e. only with respect to the issuance of Letters of Administration and Succession Certificates (in which no factual controversy is involved), a felicitation unit has been provided by the legislature which facts do transpire from Section 4 of The Act of 2021 which mandates that there shall be a Succession Felicitation Unit, whereas under Section 5 of The Act of 2021, the function of the said unit has been enumerated and thus the second ground of the petitioners that the Provincial Assembly has legislated on an occupied field is also not factually and legally correct as under the doctrine of pith and substance, which requires the Court to ascertain the true nature, substance, and dominant purpose of the impugned law in order to determine whether it falls within the legislative competence of the legislature that enacted it. A law does not become invalid merely because it incidentally or marginally touches upon a subject falling within the domain of another legislature. Under the "pith

and substance" rule, an impugned statute must be examined as a whole to ascertain its core purpose.

If the substance of the legislation falls within the legislative competence of the body that enacted it, the law is considered constitutionally valid, even if it "incidentally encroaches" upon a subject reserved for another legislature. The doctrine is applied within the framework of the distribution of legislative powers between the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and the Provincial Assemblies. This Court, in Asmat Ullah v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (PLD 2020 Peshawar 35) case has discussed the doctrine of occupied field in the following manner:

10.Besides the above, it was also contended that the Act is against the doctrine of occupied field. This doctrine has been elaborated in case titled "Shams Textile Mills Ltd v. The Province of Punjab (1999 SCMR 1477)". The relevant Para of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "The doctrine of occupied field is a concomitant of the larger doctrine of pith and substance and incidental encroachment under the doctrine of pith and substance with all its concomitants, postulates for its applicability on a competition between Federal legislation and Provincial legislation and it would be erroneous to invoke the doctrine where there is no such competition, merely because a Provincial law conflicts with another law which has not been passed by the Federal Legislature but deals with a matter in the Federal List. Similar is the case where a Federal Statute provides that the Provincial Government may extend the operation of a law to any part of the Province and the legislation is brought into operation by the Provincial Government, the law does not lose its Federal

character and does not become invalid when it comes into conflict with another Federal law. Article 143 does not apply to the resolution of inconsistency between two "existing laws" in that it applies only when there is a conflict between a Federal law passed under the Constitution and an existing law, whether Provincial or Federal. In such a case, if the Federal law is passed with respect to a matter in the Federal List or Concurrent List, it would be intra vires the Federal Legislature and as regards the question of its repugnancy to an "existing law", the Federal law would prevail on the principle of repeal by implication which rests on the principle that if the subject-matter of the latter legislation is identical with that of the earlier one, then, the earlier law stands repealed by the latter enactment."

Since, after 18th amendment, in respect of the Act nothing is provided specifically in the List, thus, this is not the case of occupied field. The Provincial Assembly has enacted the law and to that extent the applicability of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, has been repealed.

In the present case, however, as already discussed while answering Question No. 1, the subject of wills, intestacy and succession was previously included in the Concurrent Legislative List. Upon the abolition of the Concurrent Legislative List through the Eighteenth Amendment, the subject in question was not retained in the Federal Legislative List and, consequently, fell within the exclusive legislative domain of the Provincial Legislature, which was therefore competent to enact the impugned law. In these circumstances, the doctrine of occupied field has no application.

That doctrine becomes relevant only where a

subject falls within a concurrent sphere, such as criminal law=, criminal procedure and the law governing the production and admissibility of evidence, then as per mandate of sub-clause(b) of Article 142 of The Constitution, both Parliament and the Provincial Assemblies possess legislative competence to enact upon the same. Since the subject before this Court no longer lies in any concurrent domain and no overlapping legislative competence exists, therefore, there is no occasion to invoke the doctrine of occupied field in the present case.

11.As far as the third ground of the petitioners that The Act of 2021 and the rules framed thereunder i.e. The Rules of 2021 have provided a complicated, cumbersome and expensive process for the issuance of Letters of Administration and Succession Certificates as against the process as was already in vogue and as was provided by The Act of 1925 is concerned, the same too could not be appreciated in favour of the petitioners as such ground could not be considered as a legal ground for striking down an Act of the Parliament or of the Provincial Assembly. Furthermore, a person

cannot claim as a matter of right to be subjected to a particular procedure of his own choice. Needless to mention here that the petitioners was required to have established that The Act of 2021 is against their fundamental right(s) as enumerated in The Constitution (from Article 8 to Article 28) or the same is in violation of any provision(s) of The Constitution, however, during the long day arguments, they even could neither make reference to any of the fundamental rights nor to any other provision of The Constitution which has been violated through the impugned Act of 2021.

12.It was also one of the contention of the petitioner i.e. Peshawar Bar Association in their writ petition that Sections 10 and 12 of The Act of 2021 which deals with the bar of jurisdiction and giving overriding effect to The Act of 2021 are against their fundamental rights, therefore, the said Sections being relevant are reproduced below:-

10.Bar of jurisdiction.—No court shall exercise jurisdiction till such time the Authority declines to process application for issuance of the Letters of Administration or Succession Certificates by the legal heirs.

12.Provisions of this Act to override other laws.—The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything

contained in any other law for the time being in force.

The plain reading of the aforesaid provisions of law would show that the jurisdiction of the Court has not been absolutely and expressly barred rather it has been made mandatory that at the first instance a desirous applicant of Letters of Administration and Succession Certificates has to approach the authority (NADRA) and if the authority declines the issuance of the same on any ground including involving of a factual controversy in a particular case, then thereafter the applicant could approach to the Court for the redressal of his grievance and in such eventuality the procedure which is to be adopted by the said Court is to be regulated in the same manner as was in vogue before The Act of 2021 and as mandated by The Act of 1925, therefore, through the said provision of law, only a procedure has been provided by the legislature so as to regulate the issuance of Letters of Administration and Succession Certificates and an aggrieved person has neither been left remediless nor his right to approach to the Court of law has absolutely been

denied. Needless to mention here that for enactment of The Act of 2021 the petitioners have neither alleged any ill-will or malafide to the legislature nor the same could be attributed to them as per centuries long jurisprudence.

13.At the tail end of the arguments, learned counsel representing Peshawar Bar Association also produced a copy of an amendment made by the Provincial Assembly of Punjab to the effect that in The Punjab Letters of Administration and Succession Certificates Act, 2021 an amendment has been made in Section 3 thereunder whereby after the word “Authority” the words “ or a civil court” has been inserted and prayed that if such direction may be given to the Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to make an identical amendment in The Act of 2021 then it would address the grievance of the petitioners to a large extent, however, it may be clarified that the Court of law could neither make any legislation nor it could direct to a legislative body to make any particular enactment or amendment as under the concept of trichotomy of power the legislature has to legislate, the Court has to interpret the laws

and the executive has to implement the same, therefore, the desire direction for the desired amendment could not be made by this Court nevertheless the same could be sent to The Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to consider the same and place the same before the Provincial Assembly for its consideration.

14.In view of the above discussion and exposition of law, we dismiss the instant writ petition and disposed of W.P.No.579-P/2025 titled “Peshawar Bar Association through its President Amjad Ali Khan Marwat .vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others”, and it is held and declared as under:- I. That The Provincial Assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was legally and constitutionally competent to enact The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Letters of Administration and Succession Certificates Act, 2021 ( “The Act of 2021”);

II. That The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Letters of Administration and Succession Certificates Act, 2021 ( “The Act of 2021”) could not be declared ultra vires for being enacted for the occupied field;

III. That an Act of the Parliament / Provincial Assembly could not be struck down on the ground of hardship or inconvenience of its subject nor the subject could claim as a matter of right that it should be subjected to a particular procedure of his own choice; and IV. While disposing of the writ petition of the Peshawar Bar Association, we in light of the discussion in para-13 of this judgment direct The Chief Secretary as well as The Secretary of Law, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights Department to place before the Provincial Cabinet to consider an amendment in the existing legal framework as provided by The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Letters of Administration and Succession Certificates Act, 2021 ( “The Act of 2021”) in line with the amendment as made by the Provincial Government of Punjab through its Provincial Assembly by enacting an Act namely, The Punjab Letters of Administration and Succession Certificates (Amendment) Act, 2025 (LXII of 2025), whereby after the word “Authority” the words “or a civil court” has been inserted.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/‐

JUDGE

Announced on;

(D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.M. Attique Shah, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan Noor Shah