JAN MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which set aside a decision by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Chunian, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should interfere with findings of fact recorded by a statutory authority when that authority allegedly overlooked material evidence and failed to apply its mind to the merits of the case. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order. The Court held that while it is a general principle that the High Court should not normally interfere with factual findings of statutory authorities in writ jurisdiction, such interference is justified when the High Court's order is designed to further the ends of justice and ensure a decision based on the true merits of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to remand the matter for a proper adjudication.
- Should the High Court interfere with findings of fact recorded by a statutory authority in its writ jurisdiction?
- Is a High Court order remanding a case for fresh decision to ensure justice a proper exercise of writ jurisdiction?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against a High Court order that remands a matter to a statutory authority for a decision on merits?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 21-3-1982, whereby the Writ Petition (W. P. No. 3179 of 1981) filed by the respondent No. 1 (Muhammad Siddique), was accepted and the order of the A. C./Collector, Chunian, dated 28-7-1980 was set aside and the case remanded to the said Officer for hearing and deciding it afresh.
2. The A. C./Collector bad accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner by the aforesaid order. The learned Judge in the High Court has, however, held that the learned Collector had overlooked material evidence and other relevant circumstances while disposing of the appeal preferred before him. It was further held that the Collector had not applied his mind to the evidence before him and though the Evidence Act was not strictly applicable the matter ought to have been decided on merits and not on technicalities. Consequently, his order was declared to be without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect, The case was sent back to the Collector for hearing and deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law.
3. Mr. Hakam Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the High Court in its writ jurisdiction does not normally interfere with findings of fact recorded on the basis of the material before statutory authorities.
4. We agree and that this is normally the case. However, we find that, this is not a fit case for interference because the High Court has obviously passed an order designed to further the ends of justice and to secure correct decision based on the true situation in the case. In these circum-- stances, we are not inclined to interfere in our discretionary jurisdiction of granting leave to appeal, in such a matter.