1994 PLP 515 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD BAKHSH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 515 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BAKHSH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Salt Miner Service and Conduct Regulation, 1976‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 515 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Salt Miner Service and Conduct Regulation, 1976‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 515 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 515 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD BAKHSH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD JAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l.
- Muhammad Younas (Office Assistant) for Respondent No.2 (on Notice).
- Date of hearing: 30th November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 25‑4‑1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in Writ Petition No. 153‑D of 1985). ‑‑‑‑R. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Transfer of miner book‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Petitioner and respondent both were nephews of deceased miner in the same degree‑‑Finding of Trial Court that petitioner was entitled to hold miner book of deceased was reversed in appeal‑‑‑High Court maintained decision of Appellate Court ‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Finding of Appellate Court and Revisional Court that cause of action had arisen on the death of miner when petitioner was admittedly in Government service, therefore, it was not proper exercise of jurisdiction to transfer miner book to him ignoring respondent‑‑‑Petitioner had not been able to point out any infirmity or legal error in impugned judgments justifying interference by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J: ‑‑Muhammad Bakhsh petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 25‑4‑1993 whereby his revision petition against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge was dismissed. The finding of the Civil Court that the petitioner herein was entitled to hold the miner book of Fazal Ilahi deceased was reversed in appeal by the learned District Judge who found the respondent entitled to hold the same.
2. Rule 4 of the Salt Miner Service and Conduct Regulation, 1976 governs the transfer of the miner book. The relevant provision is reproduced below:‑‑
(i)
(ii) On the death of a Miner his book shall be given to one of the following relations in the order named provided the man is able‑bodied, of good character and capable of working in the mine; (a)
(b)
(c) a brother who does not possess a book of his own and who undertakes with the widow's concurrence to support the deceased miner's family; (d)
(e)
(f) a nephew on the condition mentioned in (c) above:' There is no dispute that the petitioner and respondent No.l are nephews of Fazal Ilahi deceased miner in the same degree. The learned Appellate and Revisional Courts held that the cause of action had arisen on the death of deceased miner Fatal llahi when the petitioner was admittedly in Government service, therefore, it was not proper exercise of jurisdiction to transfer the miner book to him ignoring respondent No.l. It was further observed that the impression gained by the trial Court that there was another miner book in the family of Muhammad Jan respondent was not correct as the admitted position was that the other miner book was owned by Muhammad Hanif a cousin of both the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity or legal error in the impugned judgments justifying interference by this Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. AA./M‑1892/S Petition dismissed.