MUZAFFARABAD: The Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) High Court on Friday ruled that the Senior Member of the Board of Revenue (SMBR) possessed the requisite “judicial experience” to head an inquiry committee constituted under the AJK State Subjects Act, 1980, dismissing a writ petition that had challenged the legality of such an appointment.

The petition was filed by Amer Mehboob, a Rawalpindi-based journalist, in June 2024, assailing a notification dated February 29, the same year, and subsequent notices issued on April 3 and May 20, through which an inquiry committee was constituted to examine the authenticity of his State Subject Certificate.

A division bench comprising Justice Sardar Muhammad Ejaz and Justice Chaudhary Khalid Rasheed dismissed the petition for being “devoid of merit and motivated by an attempt to delay statutory proceedings aimed at the deprivation of a state subject certificate.”

In a detailed judgment authored by Justice Rasheed, the court noted that the case had earlier been dismissed in limine but was remanded by the AJK Supreme Court with a specific direction to determine whether the SMBR qualified as a “judicial officer” within the meaning of Section 4(5) of the State Subjects Act, 1980.

The bench observed that while the Act and the corresponding Rules of 1980 did not define the expression “judicial experience,” its interpretation had to be guided by settled legal principles and authoritative definitions.

The judgment also highlighted that under the AJK Board of Revenue Act, 1993, the Board functioned as the highest court of appeal in revenue matters, rendering proceedings before it inherently judicial in nature.

Tracing the career progression of revenue officers in AJK, the court noted that assistant commissioners exercised magisterial powers, deputy commissioners conducted trials and recorded evidence, commissioners decided appeals and revisions, and Members of the Board of Revenue adjudicated disputes affecting proprietary and civil rights. Such cumulative exposure, the court held, clearly constituted judicial experience.

Therefore, the bench declared that the appointment of the SMBR as chairman of the inquiry committee was lawful and fully consonant with Section 4(5) of the State Subjects Act, 1980.

Addressing the petitioner’s contention that notices had not been issued directly by the AJK government, the court held that the statute did not require the government to issue notices personally once the inquiry committee was constituted.

The bench remarked that instead of appearing before the inquiry committee, the petitioner had approached the court to stall the process, a conduct the court described as procrastinatory.

Rejecting the precedents cited by the petitioner as inapplicable to the facts of the case, the court dismissed the petition and directed the inquiry committee to conclude proceedings within one month, ensuring a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.

Published in Dawn, January 17th, 2026