BEGUM ALMAS DAULTANA vs MANZOOR AHMAD KHAN AND Other
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order of the Settlement Commissioner and remanded the case for a fresh decision by a competent officer. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's order of remand was justified and whether the observations made by the High Court in its judgment would unfairly prejudice the proceedings upon remand. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to remand the matter for a fresh determination, finding the order legally sound and unobjectionable. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the strong observations made by the High Court in its judgment were merely tentative in nature. The Court laid down the principle that when a case is remanded for a fresh decision, the competent officer must decide the matter strictly on its merits, based on the material adduced and contentions advanced, without being influenced by any tentative observations made by the High Court in its remand order.
- Is an order of remand for a fresh decision by a competent officer justified when the original order is found to be without lawful authority?
- Should observations made by a High Court in a remand order be treated as binding findings or tentative observations?
- Can a competent officer decide a case on remand uninfluenced by tentative observations made by the High Court?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASSAN SHAH, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 14-1-1979, whereby the writ petition (W. P. No, 1119-R/70), filed by Respondent No. 1 herein, was accepted and the judgment of the Settlement Commissioner elated 9-7-1970 was declared to be without lawful and the Chief Settlement Commissioner directed to entrust the case to a competent officer to decide it afresh according to law. We have heard Mr. Zaki-ud-Din P.1, in support of this petition, as well as Mr. Dilawar Mahmood on behalf of Respondent No. 1, examined the documents filed by them in support of their respective contentions and care-- fully perused the judgment of the High Court and have come to the conclu--sion that the matter did require further examination and the order of remand to the competent officer to decide it afresh according to law was justified and is not open to any objection.
2. We, however, find that while remanding the case for decision afresh, the learned Judge in the High Court has made certain strong observations, which could conceivably influence the competent officer while deciding this matter afresh. We would clarify that the observations made in the judgment of the High Court must be treated in the nature of tentative observations and the officer dealing with the matter in remand will proceed to decide it uninfluenced by the said observations purely on the merits of the case in the light of the contentions advanced before him on the basis of material adduced in support thereof.
3. The petition; subject to the above observations stands dismissed.