1991 PLP 1424 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑Leave was granted in this case mainly on the ground that the order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 8‑6‑1978 which was based on the order dated 4‑6‑1971 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court (Mr. Justice Aslam Riaz Hussain) while disposing of Writ Petitions Nos.1908‑R of 1963 and 1990‑R of 1963 was suspended by the same learned Judge by an interim order dated 4‑5‑1973 passed by him while dealing with the Writ Petitions Nos. 219‑R of 1973 and 1073‑R of 1973 relating to the same Chak and that this aspect of the matter had been overlooked by the High Court in its impugned order, now under challenge before us. As the order of Mr. Aslam Riaz Hussain which allegedly was overlooked was only an interim order we have now also perused the judgment ultimately passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 219‑R/73, 29‑R of 1973 and 1078‑R of 1973 in which interim order dated 4‑5‑1973 was passed. We observed that these writ petitions were ultimately disposed of by Mr. Justice Abdul Shakurul Salam vide order dated 13‑2‑1978. We also observe that the writ petition riled in the present case (W.P. No. 327‑R of 1977) was also disposed of by the same learned Judge on the same date i.e. vide order dated 13‑2‑1978. We further observe that the same learned counsel who is appearing before us today had appeared in all the aforementioned writ petitions (i.e. W.P.327‑R of 1977 etc.) as also in i.e. writ petitions Nos. 219‑R of 1973 etc. before the High Court. The other aspect worth of mention is that the finding recorded by the learned Judge in the High Court while disposing of Writ Petitions Nos.219‑R/73 and 1078‑R of 1973 do not have any direct relevance to the decision ultimately taken while disposing of Writ Petition No. 327‑R of 1977 out of which the present appeal arises. Since leave was granted on the assumption that the interim order dated 14‑5‑1973 passed by Aslam Riaz Hussain, J. while admitting Writ Petitions Nos.219‑R/73, 291‑R/73 and 1078‑R/73 precluded the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner from making the order dated 8‑6‑1976 which he passed by relying on the earlier order of the High Court dated 4‑6‑1971 (as it stood suspended by the High Court vide order dated 4‑5‑1973), hence the said order was liable to be set aside is correct, so far as it goes. But we cannot overlook the circumstance that subsequently when the writ petitions in which the order dated 4‑6‑1971 was suspended does not advert to the aforesaid order and in fact the decision of the writ petitions, in those matters in its own facts and circumstances, the mere fact that on the day on which the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner passed his order dated 8‑6‑1976 he could not have relied on the order dated 4‑6‑1971 earlier passed by Aslam Riaz Hussain, J. become somewhat academic, as ultimately the said order of the High Court was not interfered with when writ petitions Nos.219‑R of 1973 etc. were ultimately decided. This case does not therefore, appear to be a fit case for interference. This appeal, accordingly, fails and is dismissed hereby. No costs. A.A./M‑1494/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.