1992 PLP 444 (MLD)

(ii) that respondent No.3 committed forgery and fabricated the record of rights by incorporating the entries of ownership of land in village Heer, in the record of rights (Jamabandi for the year 2002‑2003 Bk). In addition to making forgery in the Birth Certificate and Identity Card Certificate (Form B), he also manoeuvred the statements of the witnesses, namely, Ch. Purvaiz Ashraf (Ex‑Minister), Ch. Muhammad Latif, Advocate Bhimber and others; and (iii) that the District Magistrate acted without lawful authority in granting State Subject Certificate and Domicile Certificate to a person who was not State Subject or Domicile of District Mirpur.

4. It was alleged that as the nomination for admission in the professional colleges, has already been made, the petitioner was not vested with any other efficacious remedy for redress of his grievance, except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.

5. Respondents Nos.l and 2 admitted the claim of the petitioner to the effect that he was State Subject Class‑I and domicile of District Mirpur. However, averments relating to issuance of impugned certificate in favour of Muhammad Iqbal, respondent No.3 were not admitted. It was further averred that the writ was not tenable as the petitioner was vested, with right to avail the remedy of appeal before the proper forum.

6. Zafar lqbal, Patwari, respondent No.4 who was shown to have issued the copies of record of rights and certificate in support of the claim of Muhammad Iqbal, respondent No.3, in his written statement, admitted the claim of the petitioner. He expressly repudiated the issuance of copies of record of rights containing the entry in the name of Muhammad Nawaz, father of Muhammad Iqbal, as one of the land owners in village Heer, and the alleged certificate issued by the Patwari in his name. He produced certified copies of the Jamabandi in practice in the village Heer and disclosed that Muhammad Nawaz, father of Muhammad Iqbal, was not an owner of land in village Heer, nor he resided there at all.

7. Muhammad lqbal was summoned for his personal appearance in the Court. He has failed to appear. Sardar Ali, Process‑Server who was entrusted with the summons to effect service on Muhammad lqbal, respondent No.3, visited village Heer, on November 17, 1991. He tried to find out Muhammad Iqbal but his whereabouts could not be found. Ch. Allah Ditta, Ch. Fazal Ellahi, Muhammad Siddique alias Kala and Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Lambardar of the village, disclosed that no one of the name of Muhammad Iqbal son of Muhammad Nawaz ever resided in village Heer of Tehsil Bhimber, nor such person or his parents or grandparents were ever owners of landed or built‑up property in the‑ village. They signed the report of the Process‑Server as witnesses, in support of the aforesaid position. Sardar Ali, Process‑Service made a report to that effect and also gave his affidavit in its support. In presence of the aforesaid report, it was deemed to serve the respondent by substituted service, by issuance of proclamation in the newspaper. Substituted service was effected accordingly. Muhammad Iqbal failed to put up his appearance, to defend the action brought against him.

8. Sardar Muhammad Sadiq Khan, the learned Additional Advocate General, stated at the Bar that the Government, immediately on admission of the writ petition, intimated the authorities of the Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad where the nomination of Muhammad Iqbal, respondent No.3, was made, to withhold the nomination, till the decision of the writ petition. This suggests that Muhammad Iqbal who May have availed the recommendation of the Nomination Board, to secure his admission in Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad, must have acquired knowledge of the action brought against him by the petitioner, from the authorities of the College. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the respondent has failed to put up his appearance to defend the certificates issued in his name and his nomination for admission in the Medical College

9. The main objection of the respondents against the acceptance of the writ petition relates to presence of alternative remedy in the manner of appeal before the competent authority. There is no denying the fact that the remedy of appeal against the certificates in dispute, is available but that by itself is not sufficient to deny the relief to the petitioner. I: is imperative for the Court to satisfy that in presence of alternative remedy, such remedy was adequate and efficacious. Unless it was so satisfied, it was least justified to refuse the remedy m exercise of writ jurisdiction. An identical proposition received the attention of the Full Bench of Lahore High Court in Mahboob Ali Malik's case P L D 1963 (W.P.) Lah.

575. Mr. Justice Manzoor Qadir, Chief Justice, as he then was, made critical analysis of the term `alternative' or `adequate' remedy and laid down the test as a guiding principle to settle such proposition. It was observed that the adequacy of alternative remedy was to be adjudged in relation to the requisite relief. When another authority was not vested with power to give relief of the nature and extent, in such situation even in presence of alternative remedy, it was the duty of the Court, in a fit case, to give relief to an aggrieved person, in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Morevoer, it was observed, that when another authority had the power to give relief of the nature and extent, it was enjoined upon the Court to make comparison to the speed, expense or convenience of giving that relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction. When other authority was not in a position to give relief with such speed, expense or convenience, the Court was clothed with jurisdiction to give relief to an aggrieved citizen.

10. The true test of adequacy of relief rested on the points of (i) speed; and (ii) expense or convenience, in granting the requisite relief. Thus, in a case where the other authority vested with power to grant requisite relief was not in a position to redress the grievance in a speedy manner and with forthright convenience, as this Court could do in exercise of writ jurisdiction, in such case, despite presence of alternative remedy, writ jurisdiction can be invoked by an aggrieved person. This view finds support from the decision of Miss Usma Ishaque's case P L D 1986 Azad J&K 112 and Allah Ditta's case P L D 1961 (W.P.) Lah. 479.

11. It is not seriously contested that the question of issuance of impugned certificates being a question of fact, necessitated an independent inquiry, but it was suggested that it would be appropriate if this matter was referred to the District Magistrate for inquiry and adjudication at his convenience. The objection is unsustainable as in presence of the material placed before this Court, the points at issue can be settled down conclusively, without holding further inquiry.

12. The certificates in question were issued on the basis of reports of the Patwari of village Heer, reports of Tehsildar and S.D.M., Bhimber. These reports were made on the basis of oral statements and certified copies of the record of rights, of village Heer, Both the files have been summoned from the office of the District Magistrate, Mirpur. The record is, therefore, readily available for the scrutiny of 'the Court arid conclusive settlement of the proposition. The applications for' State Subject Certificate and Domicile Certificate were moved on August 12 and 21, 1991, respectively. Muhammad Iqbal made a statement before the S.D.M. on the same day and produced Muhammad Ashraf, Maroof Ahmed who supported his claim before the S.D.M. on August 13, 1991. One Khushi Muhammad also appeared on August

20. Copy of the record of rights (Jamabandi for the year 2002‑2003‑BK) of village Heer, issued by Zaffar Iqbal, Patwari on August 6, 1991; was produced. According to the entries in column No.3 of the copy of record of rights, Muhammad Nawaz son of Sultan Ahmed Jat was shown as a co‑sharer in the land comprising Khewat No.Z, Khatas Nos.177 to 182, in village Heer, Tehsil Bhimber. In addition to that, photostat of the Identify Card No.706‑91‑239594, issued on August 1, 1991, certified copy of birth certificate issued by the Secretary Union Council, Phangali and Form B' of Identification Card were also produced.

13. The duplicate copy of Form `B' No.120027 was certified on August 21, 1991. It contains no date of issuance of the Identity Card in the name of Muhammad Nawaz, head of the family (father of Muhammad Iqbal). The Identity Card was issued on August 1, 1991. The certificate of date of birth issued by the ‑Secretary Union Council, Phangali, was issued on August

12. The entry of date of birth of Muhammad Iqbal was shown to have been made in the Register of date of births, on the same day. This suggests that the aforesaid documents were prepared and secured within 12 days and the certificate was finally issued on August 22,1991 by the District Magistrate.

14. The application for Domicile Certificate was moved on August 21, 1991. The Tehsildar Bhimber made a report in favour of Muhammad Iqbal, on August

24. The report of Zaffar lqbal, Patwari Halqa Phangali, was also made on the same day. The statements of Muhammad lqbal, respondent No.3, Ch. Purvaiz Ashraf, Advocate and Ch. Muhammad. Latif, Advocate were recorded on August 25, 1991. In addition to that, photostat copies of the Identity Card, State Subject Certificate, Farm `B' of Identity Card, Birth Certificate issued by the Secretary Union Council, Bhimber and an affidavit of Muhammad Iqbal were also produced. The details of the documents referred to above have already been analysed elsewhere. The certificate was issued by the District Magistrate on August 26,1991.

15. The aforesaid proceedings for the grant of State Subject Certificate and Domicile Certificate were concluded in the month of August, 1991. It appears that the District Magistrate, S.D.M. and Tehsildar initially acted on the basis of copy of record of rights issued by the local Patwari and his statement, in addition to the Birth Certificate issued by the Secretary Union Council, Identity Card, its Form V. and the oral statements of the witnesses.

16. Zafar Iqbal, respondent No.4, personally appeared in this Court, and' submitted his written statement wherein it was admitted that he was Patwari of Halqa. Phangali, Tehsil Bhimber. The record of rights of village Heer, Tehsil Bhimber was in his custody. He expressly repudiated having issued the copies of the record of rights or making statement in the shape of certificate in favour of Muhammad Iqbal, respondent No.3. It was explained by him that no register of Jamabandi for the year 2002‑2003‑BK is in use in the village. The Jamabandi in use is for the year 1999‑2000‑BK. According to the record of the village, Muhammad Nawaz, father of Muhammad Iqbal was not owner of the land in question as the said land was in the ownership of other villagers whose names were entered in the record placed on the file of this Court: He denied his signatures on the questioned certified copy of the record of rights (Jamabandi for the year 2002‑2003‑BK) and the statement in the shape of certificate. The questioned signatures of War Iqbal, Patwari were compared with his admitted signatures. Both of them are not found compatible and identical so as to hold that the said record of the certificate was issued by Zafar Iqbal, Patwari. Ht also filed an affidavit. In view of the aforesaid position, it is safe to hold that the record of rights, Form `B', of Identity Card, Birth Certificate issued by the Secretary Union Council, Phangali and; Identity Card of Muhammad Iqbal are forged one. The record was fabricated with the mala fide intention to secure admission in the Medical College, against the reserved seats of District Mirpur. The whole exercise was deceptive and fraudulent.

17. An identical proposition was raised in the case of Muhammad Ashraf P L D 1979 Azad J&K

43. In that case, bona fides of domicile of one Qamar Afzal who also secured his nomination against the reserved seats of District Kotli, was assailed by invoking jurisdiction of this Court. The question of propriety of the domicile was settled by adverting to the evidence produced by the parties with their pleadings. The proposition received the attention of the Supreme Court as well in the case titled Qamar Afzal v. Muhammad Ashfaq and others P L, D 1979 SC (AJ&K)

96. Identical propositions relating to nomination of students against the reserved seats in professional colleges in Pakistan were settled invariably by this Court on the basis of documentary evidence, produced by the parties alongwith their pleadings. Following the principle laid down in the aforesaid authorities, it is safe to conclude that the impugned certificates were issued by the District Magistrate, without due satisfaction by adequate evidence. The act of the District Magistrate was thus, an act without lawful authority. Both the certificates (State Subject Certificate and Domicile Certificate)‑having been issued in a wrongful manner, and illegal exercise of authority, are hereby cancelled. The recommendation of the Nomination Board, respondent No.2, made on the basis of such certificates, by nominating Muhammad Iqbal, respondent No3 for his admission in the Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad, against the reserved quota of District Mirpur, is also set aside.

18. By virtue of the merit list, the vacant seat is available for nomination of the petitioner as, according to the record placed before this Court, he was next to avail the seat in question. The Nomination Board respondent No.2, shall, therefore, recommend the case of the petitioner for his admission in the Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad, against the reserved quota of District Mirpur. Respondent No.3 whose certificates in question and nomination have been set aside, has not personally appeared before the Court, as such no order as to costs is passed. Let a writ‑be issued in the aforesaid manner of order of the Court. K.B.A./502/H.CA. Petition accepted.