Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No. 489‑R of 1982, decided on 13th November, 1982.
‑‑ S. 24‑Transfer of civil cases‑No allegation of malice leveled against Presiding Officer‑Mere fact of whole matter having not been disposed of, due to certain circumstances, within period specified in order of High Court passed in a previous writ petition may be good ground for calling for explanation of Presiding Officer as to why he be not dealt with according to law for non‑compliance of Court's order but such by itself, held, not a sufficient ground for transfer of case.
Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 13th November, 1982.
This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, wherein it is prayed that a direction be given for the transfer of the case pending in the Court of Mr. Masood Hassan Qureshi, Settlement Com missioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, to some other Settlement notified officer of competent jurisdiction. The grievance of the petitioner is that notwith standing the specific direction given by this Court in W. P. 251‑R‑78 to the Settlement Commissioner, to dispose of the case on merits within three months from the passing of the order, the learned Settlement Commissioner has not cared to dispose of the same and frequent adjournments are being granted on flimsy grounds. Ir. these circumstances, the petitioner apprehends that be will not get justice at the bands of the learned Settlement Commis sioner, who has not complied with the order passed by the High Court, in that, justice should not only be done but should also seem to be done. No allegation of malice has been levelled against the learned Presiding Officer, and the mere fact that due to certain circumstances, the whole matter could not be disposed of within the period specified in the order passed by this Court in W. P. 251‑R‑1978 may be a good ground for calling for the explana tion of the learned Presiding Officer as to why he should not be dealt with in accordance with law for non‑compliance of the order passed by this Court but this by itself is not a sufficient ground for transfer of the case. The impugned order dated 1‑11‑1982 of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, whereby he rejected the prayer for the transfer of the case with the direction to the Settlement Commissioner that the matter be disposed of within the current month i. e. November, 1982, does not suffer from any legal infirmity, calling for interference in the exercise of discretionary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. I may however, point out that if the case is not finally dis posed of by the learned Settlement Commissioner, by the end of November, 1982, as directed by the learned Member Board of Revenue, he shall be dealt with in accordance with law, for non‑compliance of the orders earlier passed in W. P. 251‑R‑1978. With these observations, the writ petition, is dismissed in limine.
S. A. H. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer