P L D 1961 W (PLP)

Revision No. 90 of 1959‑60,'decided on 7th November 1960, District Multan. Lambardar‑Appointment‑Order of Collector may be set aside if it .is nor. reasonable. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Petitioner. Hasan Akhtar for Respondent. This case relates to the Lambardari of Patti Daltp Singh Chak No. 135[10‑R, District Multan. The Collector appointed Aziz‑ud‑Din the appellant, but the learned Commissioner on appeal intervened in favour of the respondent Niaz Nfuhammad and set aside the order of the Collector. A second appeal has been preferred by Aziz‑ud‑Din. The main point that has been taken up before me is that in accordance with the principles laid down by the Financial Commissioners and‑ followed by the Board of Revenue the choice of the Collector which was reasonable and appropriate should not have been interfered with by the learned Commissioner. Reliance is placed on Mashir Ali v. Muhammad Chiragh (P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 925) which has formed the basis of a number of subsequent decisions. Maynard, F. C. held in that case that if the Collector exercises his discretion in a reasonable manner taking into consideration all matters which may be regarded as relevant to the suitability of an appointment his decision should be allowed to stand; and the mere fact that the appellate or revising authority takes a different view of the claims of the parties is not a justification for upsetting or revising that decision. That is a sound principle but the learned Commissioner in this case dissented from the Collector's decision on good grounds. He was of the view that the Collector had been unduly biased by one single fact, namely that an adjournment had been obtained by the father of the respondent in a receipt full manner alleging that the respondent was away at Lahore and could not be informed in time of the hearing, while as a matter of fact that very day the respondent who is a military pensioner had drawn his pension at Multan. The respondent's explanation was that he reached Multan post haste from Lahore but when he arrived there he found that the Collector had already granted an adjournment. He, however, took advantage of his presence at Multan to draw his pension from the Post Office that day. This explanation might just as well be correct particularly in view of the fact that the appellant himself was absent and an adjournment was in any case to follow. The principle laid down in Mashir Ali v. Muhammad Chiragh was considered in a later case in Nanak Singh v. Bhola Singh (P L D 1950 Ph. (Rev.) 1001) by F. C. King and he came to the conclusion that the Commissioner would be justified to interfere if a Collector had attached undue weight to a single fact thereby taking an extreme view of it resulting in a wrong decision. In this particular case the respondent owns more land in the Chak. He has been a temporary Lambardar of this very Patti since 1947 and is a military pensioner. He is middle pass. All these factors were in his favour. I am therefore inclined to agree with the finding of the learned Commissioner that though the appellant was better of the two candidates the Collector was unduly biased by one single fact, namely what he considered the questionable means employed to obtain an adjournment. Interference by the Commis sioner _was therefore justified in this particular case. I would, therefore, decline to interfere and reject this appeal. K. M. A. Appeal rejected. Appeal rejected.