P L D 1957 W (PLP)
FAIZ MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1957 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAIZ MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1957 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1957 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1957 W (PLP) (FAIZ MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ahmad, Advocate for Petitioner.
- Kh. Abdur Rahim, Advocate assisted by Muhammad Siddiq and Ghulam Ali Advocates for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Appointment‑Candidate ignored as to com plaints were pending against him‑Complaints subsequently found untrue‑Revision lies.
Judgment & Decree
H. A. MAJID.‑
The Collector selected the respondent for this appointment and the Commissioner declined to intervene. The Collector, however, mentioned in his judgment that he would have given a slight preference to the petitioner but for the fact that there were two complaints pending against him under sections 406 and 420, P. P. C. It has since been made clear that those two complaints were referred to the Collector for deciding whether he would permit the prosecution of the present petitioner, and the result was that the permission was refused. The orders passed by the Collector in the two cases showed that the matters were petty. The allegations were that the petitioner dad as temporary Lambardar overcharged the revenue payers of the estate. The Collector did not find against the peti tioner in the first case but in the second he found that there was an overcharged amount of Rs. 1‑9‑
0. He ordered this amount to be refunded. In the other case, he mentioned that there was no indication of mala fides on the part of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I would hold that the petitioner has been the victim of a certain amount of intrigue in the estate. If the Collector was prepared to prefer him in the first instance, I should be willing to interfere in his favour at the stage of revision. Both the petitioner and the respondent are respectable looking gentlemen and are likely to be efficient and they are both members of the same tribe. The petitioner, how ever, has one acre more than the respondent. I would, therefore, accept this petition of revision and direct that the petitioner should replace the respondent as the Lambardar of this estate. M. S. Revision accepted.