Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 4083 of 1986, decided on 22nd October, 1986.

---S.36--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Appointment of Lambardar--Finding of fact--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of- Revenue Authorities found petitioner disqualified to be appointed as Lambardar on ground of his being absentee or non-resident of locality concerned--Finding of fact of Revenue Authorities coupled, with discretion for selection and appointment of Lambardar, held, could not be interfered with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.

---S.36--Appointment of Lambardar--Objection to--Person not found fit by Revenue Authorities to be appointed as Lambardar, held, had no locus standi to question appointment of another person as a Lambardar by Revenue Authorities.

---S.36--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Appointment to post of Lambardar is not a fit subject-matter for interference in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court--Constitutional petition filed by person who otherwise was disqualified to be appointed as Lambardar was dismissed by High Court in circumstances.

Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Petitioner.

The petitioner was a contestant for appointment as a Lambardar of Chak No. 154/G.B., Tehsil Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh when the vacancy fell on the death of last incumbent of the office of Lambardar.

2. The petitioner was Collector's choice. The learned Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad by his order dated 10-6-1985 in appeal reversed the order of the Collector and recorded a clear finding that Abdul Qayyum, petitioner is the permanent resident of Gojra, not living in the Chak and the Chak is situated at a distance of 15/16 kilometers from Gojra and therefore it cannot be considered to be contiguous to Gojra. Abdul Qayyum was permanently working as commission agent at Gojra and as such being an absentee, he could not perform the duties of Lambardar properly and efficiently. The petitioner has been thrown out from the contest on the finding that he being an absentee was not acceptable to the revenue administration for appointment as a lambardar. The finding of the revenue authorities regarding the petitioner being an absentee has completely sealed his fate and this finding of fact coupled with discretion for selection and appointment of a Lambardar ought not to be interfered with in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.

3. The petitioner who was not found fit for selection as a Lambardar has no locus standi to question the appointment of another person as a lambardar by the competent authorities. The learned Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue are both satisfied that State interest would be better served by the respondent. I am in no position on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case or the material on record to exercise my choice in preference to the choice of functionaries conferred special jurisdiction in that behalf.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner now wants me to enter into the field of rule of primogeniture and according to him, second son could not have been appointed if the first son is to be disqualified. I have considered this request. I think it will be wastage of public time to enter into such an academic discussion. After being held to be disqualified for appointment, the petitioner has no locus standi. This Court according to settled practice, need not enter into wasteful exercise which is not going to change the fate of a given case. Furthermore, according to the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court, appointment to the post of a Lambardar is not a fit subject- matter for interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

The net result is that this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

H.B.T./A-46/L Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.