Haji AHMAD YAR vs ALLAH DITTA and anothers
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court concerning a Lambardari appointment case. The core legal question is whether the High Court ought to interfere with Lambardari appointment cases in its constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly refused to interfere, affirming the well-established practice of declining interference in such executive appointment matters under its discretionary jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that superior courts will not ordinarily interfere with Lambardari appointments in constitutional jurisdiction due to the discretionary nature of the remedy and established judicial practice.
- Can the High Court interfere with Lambardari appointment cases in its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Is the refusal of the High Court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in Lambardari cases in accordance with established practice?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court, of a constitutional petition which has arisen out of a Lambardari appointment case.
2. ' We are satisfied that on merits the questions raised in the petition before the High Court, could not be agitated in its constitutional writ jurisdiction. The High Court in a well-established practice refrains from interference with Lambardari appointment cases in its discretionary jurisdiction, on sound principles.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel we have not been able to discover anything, now to make departure from this practice. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.