Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: REHMAT ALI VS Respondent: SARDAR MUHAMMAD
P L D 1966 W
P L D 1966 W. P. (Rev.) 180
Before I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
REHMAT ALI‑Petitioner
versus
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ‑Respondent
Revision No. 1323 of 1964‑65, decided on 5th January 1966.
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Recommendations of Tahsildar, EAC and Union Council‑Mere opinions which cannot under mine discretion of Collector.
(b) Lambardar‑No case under S. 107, Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) pending against candidate when case decided by Commissioner‑Such point cannot be taken before Board of Revenue‑Collector may remove Lambardar bound down under S. 107 after his appointment, if order of Criminal Court amounts to his disqualification.
Shaukat Mahmud for Petitioner. Malik Ghulam Ali for Respondent.
ORDER
This is a revision filed against an order dated the 2nd of June 1965, passed by Commissioner, Sargodha Division, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.
The facts of the case are that Muhammad Din, former Lambardar of the village, died in 1962. For filling up his vacancy, eleven persons applied. Four withdrew in favour of the respondent and three in favour of the petitioner. Out of the remaining four, the Collector selected the respondent. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner but it was rejected. Hence this revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has contended that the orders passed by the Collector were prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. That only means that, according to him, a different decision should have been given. There is nothing on record to show that the order passed by the learned Collector was, in any way. perverse or unreasonable. While selecting the respondent, he considered the claims of both the parties, and then gave a decision.
The learned counsel for the petitioner desires to rely on the recommendation made by the Tahsildar and EAC and the Union Councils. Such recommendations are at the most, opinions and cannot be used to undermine the discretion exercised by the Collector after a due consideration of all the aspects of the case.
Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondent had been bound down under section 107, Cr. P. C. It is, however, admitted that this happened after the Commis sioner had dismissed the appeal. I have been shown a copy of the Judgment but it is not clear therefrom whether this binding down would amount to a disqualification which would justify interference at the revisional stage. At any rate, the fact remains that, when the learned Commissioner, passed the order, there was no case pending against the respondent, under section 107, Cr. P. C.:"
As things stood at the time, the learned Commissioner was perfectly justified in upholding the order passed by the learned Collector. Subsequent happenings would not justify interference at this stage. If the binding down amounts to a disqualification, which would necessitate or justify the removal of the respondent II, the Collector will take necessary action. Merely on this ground, no interference is justified at this stage.
In these circumstances, the revision fails and is dismissed hereby.
K. M. A. Revision dismissed.