P L D 1959 W (PLP)
HAQ NAWAZ‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. W. Abbasi Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | HAQ NAWAZ‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. W. Abbasi Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1959 W (PLP) (HAQ NAWAZ‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. A. Razaq for Hassan Akhtar for Petitioner.
- Saeed Akhtar for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Horse breeding grant‑District Remount Officer's recom mendation re : proposed grantees‑Entitled to weight but not the last word‑Collector may choose a suitable grantee.
Judgment & Decree
Revision Side No. 87 of 1958‑59, decided on 27th April 1959, District Montgomery. Horse breeding grant‑District Remount Officer's recom mendation re : proposed grantees‑Entitled to weight but not the last word‑Collector may choose a suitable grantee. M. A. Razaq for Hassan Akhtar for Petitioner. Saeed Akhtar for Respondent. This is a revision petition regarding a Horse Breeding grant. The facts of the case are set forth at full length in the Collector's order dated 11‑1‑1958 and equally clearly in the appellate order of the Additional Commissioner dated 24‑9‑1958. The grant was resumed from one A. K. Mumtaz. The District Remount Officer recommended three names arranging them in priority order and placing Haq Nawaz at No. 1 and Muhammad Aslam at No.
3. Number 2 is not a petitioner before me. The Collector after observing that the District Remount Officer had not given any reasons for his priority list entered into a discussion of the comparative merits of the three candidates before him and came to the conclusion that Muhammad Aslam was the best candidate, mainly on the ground that he was associated with his father and uncle in maintaining a stud and had experience of horse breeding. The Additional Commissioner also gave impor tance to this fact and dismissed the appeal of Haq Nawaz and upheld the Collector order in favour of Muhammad Aslam. The revision petition has not been argued on any specific ground except the fact‑that‑the District Remount Officer had placed him No. 1 in his list. This is true, but while the District. Remount Officer's recommendation should receive due weight, it cannot be accepted as the last word specially where the merits of his recommendation are not explained. I think the Collector was justified in arriving at the conclusion that Muhammad Aslam was the best candidate. He hag since won a certificate of merit in connection with the exhibition of fillies at the National Horse Show, His merits, therefore, are superior to those of the petitioner. In effect I see no ground to interfere with the concurring order of the two Courts below and reject the revision. A. H. Petition dismissed.