SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD HAFIZ and another
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction in a dispute regarding the appointment of a Lambardar. Upon examining the merits of the case, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court had correctly declined to interfere in the matter. The Supreme Court upheld the decision, noting that the High Court's refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction in the context of a Lambardari appointment was consistent with established legal precedents, specifically citing the principle laid down in Sharaf Din v. Qazi Abdul Jalil and another (1986 SCMR 1368). Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby affirming the High Court's stance that such administrative appointments generally fall outside the scope of writ jurisdiction. The judgment reinforces the principle of judicial restraint regarding the interference of superior courts in administrative appointments of this nature.
- Does the High Court have the authority to exercise writ jurisdiction in matters concerning the appointment of a Lambardar?
- Is the appointment of a Lambardar a suitable subject for interference by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- Learned counsel is absent. The learned A.O.R. States that he has no authority from the learned counsel to argue the case. We have ourselves examined the merits. The question agitated before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction related to the appointment of a Lambardar. The learned Judge has rightly declined to exercise the writ jurisdiction in the Lambardari case. His view gets support from Sharaf Din v. Qazi Abdul Jalil and another (1986 SCMR 1368) and several other judgments of this case. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.