P L D 1966 W (PLP)

F. M. Anwari for Respondent. This order will dispose of the following three revisions:‑

(1) Fateh Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh (Revision No. 14 of 1964‑65). (2) Farzand v. Maula Bakhsh (Revision No. 56 of 1964‑65). (3) Ali Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh (Revision No. 2077 of 1964‑65).

2. These three revisions have been filed against an order dated 5th August 1964, passed by Commissioner, Multan Division whereby the three appeals preferred by the petitioners were rejected.

3. The facts of the case are that the non‑Muslim Lambardar of village migrated and when the question of filling up the vacancy came up for consideration, nine candidates put in their applications. There were some withdrawals and non‑appearance and ultimately the contest was confined to five candidates only. The Collector examined the case of all the five candidates and ultimately preferred Maula Bakhsh respondent. The three petitioners went in appeal to the Commissioner but their appeals were rejected. Hence these three revisions.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There are two aspects of the case; one is legal and the other relates to merits. On the legal side it has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that because the respondent was bound down under section 107, Cr. P. C., he should not be appointed as a Lambardar. In this connection I was referred to P L D 1963 W. P. (Rev.)

3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to P L D 1964 W. P. (Rev.)

42. The Full Board Ruling lays down the basic principle that ordinarily a person bound down under section 107, Cr. P. C. should not be appointed as a Lambardar. It has, however, been added therein that if there are mitigating circumstances, these proceedings will not be a bar against appointment of a person as a Lambardar. The point involved in this case is whether there are any mitigating circumstances which would go in favour of the respondent. On the last date of hearing arguments were heard and I asked the learned counsel for the respondent to let me see an attested copy of the order under which respondent was bound down. I have seen that order. The proceedings were started on a private complaint by Faqir Muhammad one of the candidates to the post of Lambardar. The dispute arose over Election differences and Faqir Muhammad apprehended breach of peace from the respondent. The complainant side produced evidence which was conflicting but the Magistrate accepted the version of Faqir Muhammad and bound down the respondent along with three other persons. In the first instance the evidence was conflicting; in the second allegations were not of a serious nature, again, this binding down took place in 1960 and for the last four or five years there have been no complaints against the respondent. It is, therefore, clear that his binding down under section 107, Cr. P. C. in 1960 cannot be a bar against his appointment as a Lambardar.

5. On merits I find that both the learned Collector and the Commissioner have gone through the case very minutely. They have come to the conclusion after a very detailed examination of the respective claims. I, therefore, see no justification for interference. In these circumstances all the three revisions fail and are therefore dismissed. M'.A Petitions dismissed.