ABDUL GHAFOOR vs Haji ABDUL SALAM and others
This matter originated from a constitutional petition filed by Haji Abdul Salam, which was adjudicated by the Lahore High Court on October 8, 1986. The High Court, after examining the merits and legal propositions, determined that the interests of justice necessitated a remand of the case to the Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement Wing-revenue). The High Court specifically declined to adjudicate on disputed factual issues, such as the alleged failure to pay the transfer price or the validity of a compensation book, noting that such inquiries were unsuitable for constitutional proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed this decision upon appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, reasoning that the remand was appropriate as it allowed for a comprehensive examination of the merits in accordance with the law, without debarring the petitioner from participating in the proceedings. The Court affirmed that remanding a case for a proper inquiry into disputed facts is a valid exercise of judicial discretion when the record is insufficient for a final determination.
- Is a remand order appropriate when the record is insufficient to determine disputed factual issues?
- Does a remand order in a constitutional petition violate the rights of the petitioner if they are permitted to participate in the subsequent proceedings?
- Can a High Court decline to decide factual disputes in a constitutional petition and instead remand the matter for inquiry?
- Section 2(2), Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--The Constitution petition filed by Haji Abdul Salam was decided by the Lahore High Court by judgment dated 8-10-1986. The learned Judge who dealt with the petition thoroughly examined the legal propositions, merits and entitlement of the parties and then came to the conclusion that it was in the best interest of justice that the matter be remanded. The learned Judge accordingly observed:- "The question as to whether or not the petitioner failed to pay the transfer price or that his compensation hook was declared as bogus, requires an inquiry for which there is no room in these proceedings. Likewise, in view of the order which I propose to make, there is no need to give a decision on the respondents' claim that they acted in good faith and that due to the construction of the buildings the character of the property has gone under a change."
2. With the aforesaid observation, the case was remanded to the Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement Wing-revenue) for its entrustment to some officer notified under section 2(2) of Act XIV of 1975. The learned Judge further directed that the matter should be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
3. ' There could not be a better order than this. In fact this is more in favour of the petitioner. He has not been debarred from participating in the proceedings where the whole thing shall he thrashed out in accordance with law.
4. ' We, therefore, don't agree with the learned counsel that in the instant case the remand was not called for by law.