1990 PLP 549 (SCMR)
Hakim MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 549 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zillah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Hakim MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 549 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 549 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zillah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 549 (SCMR) (Hakim MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza A. Anwar Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 28‑10‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, in Writ Petition No.8868 of 1980). ‑‑‑S.36‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Appointment of Lambardar‑‑‑Petitioner's contention was that discretion exercised in favour of respondent/appointee by the Authorities should have been interfered with by the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction because the respondent was convicted and sentenced by a Civil Court for contempt of Court, but was ultimately yet off on accepting his unqualified apology‑‑‑No provision of law was pointed out on petitioner's side as to why respondent in the circumstances of case could not have been appointed as a Lambardar‑‑‑When respondent had perjured himself of contempt and his unqualified apology had been accepted, there was no bar in principle, its so far as the question of appointment of a Lambardar was concerned‑‑‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
Mirza A. Anwar Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 7th August, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH. J,‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of a Lambardari case. The respondent No.2 was preferred for the appointment. The petitioner's writ petition having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal. Despite the findings of fact that the said respondent was more suitable person for the appointment as a Lambardar, the learned counsel has contended that the discretion exercised in favour of the said respondent should have been interfered with by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The ground urged in this behalf is that the said respondent was convicted and sentenced by a Civil Court for Contempt of Court, but was ultimately let off on accepting his unqualified apology. Learned counsel was unable to rely on any law by virtue of which the respondent No.2, in the circumstances of this case, could not have been appointed as a Lambardar. Otherwise too, when he had perjured himself of contempt and his unqualified apology had been accepted, there was no bar in principle either, in so far as the question of appointment of a Lambardar is concerned. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. A.A./M‑971 /S Leave refused.