ORDER SHEET.

                        HIGH COURT OF SINDH, HYDERABAD CIRCUIT.

                                                C.P.NO.D-368/2010                                       .

Date                                         Order with signature of Judge

                        1. For orders on office objection.

                        2. For Katcha Peshi.

                        3. For orders on MA 1389/10.

14.4.2010.

                        Miss Shabana Kausar Jatoi, Advocate for petitioners.

Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, Additional A.G a/w Nawab Hussain Qureshi, EDO (Agriculture) Sanghar on behalf of DCO Sanghar and Nazar Muhammad Chang, Deputy Director Tech, Agricultur Engineering & Water Management, Hyderabad.

Mr. Muhammad Sharif Misrani, Advocate files power on behalf of respondent No.2 alognwith comments, which are taken on record.

                                                            =

                        The controversy in this petition appears to be that petitioners participated in a Tractor Subsidy Scheme introduced by the respondents. The subsidy was to be allowed through balloting. The Petitioners after compliance of initial codal formalities were allotted DCO code numbers as TDM 405 and TDM 422 respectively. The balloting took place on 25^th March 2010 and thereafter the list of successful applicants was published wherein two numbers appeared as SR 405 at Serial No.50 and SR 422 at Serial No.65 giving names of Mohammad Hassan and Gulbahar. Petitioners claim that since the number allotted to them matches the number of successful applicant therefore they are entitled for tractor.

                        On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed comments and contends that petitioners were granted code numbers in accordance with Taluka of District Sanghar. The petitioners had applied from Taluka Tando Adam and they were granted numbers as TDM 405 and TDM 422 and since the balloting took place District wise, therefore, all the numbers allotted in different Taluka were consolidated and a consolidated list of District Sanghar was prepared wherein the petitioners name appears at SR 307 and SR 320. It is further asserted that as per the terms and conditions of ballot the names of the successful applicants were to be published and not the numbers, therefore, the petitioners have no case as their names never appeared in the list of successful applicants.

                        Counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to respond except that the consolidation was not in the knowledge of the petitioners. From the scrutiny of the documents on record the contention raised on behalf of the respondents appears to be correct, however, giving finding on disputed facts would amount to adjudicating disputed facts in constitution jurisdiction which is not advisable. The petition therefore alongwith listed application is dismissed.     

                                                                                                JUDGE

                                                            JUDGE

Tufail