1986 PLP 329 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD LATIF‑‑Appellant Versus THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIALKOT and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 329 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD LATIF‑‑Appellant Versus THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIALKOT and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 329 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 329 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 329 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD LATIF‑‑Appellant Versus THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIALKOT and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant (in Civil Appeal 137 of 1985).
- Jawad S. Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant (in Civil appeal No. 138 of 1985).
- M. Ismail, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 and 5.
- Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 16‑2‑1985 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 649 and 2853 of 1984). ‑‑‑Practice‑‑Judgment of Supreme Court‑‑Modification or further amplification of‑‑Both contesting parties relying on portions of ‑same judgment delivered by Full Court in an earlier case‑‑Rule stated therein not only requires to be interpreted and applied in circumstances of present case but may also require modification or further amplification‑ Matter to be heard by a larger Bench of at least 5 Judges. Niaz Ahmad v. Azizuddin and others P L D 1967 S C 466 ref.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑In these two election matters the election staff had entered the identity card number on the back of the ballot- papers and the question arose whether the entire elections had become void on account of the violation of the principle of secrecy of ballot.
2. The Courts below found that in the above circumstances the secrecy of the poll was violated and rule 29 of the Punjab Local Council Election Rules, 1979 contravened. Hence, the results of the election were materially effected and the entire election stood vitiated.
3. However, the learned counsel in support of these appeals referred to rule 40(4)(b) of the Election Rules, which reads:‑‑ 1140(4)(b):‑‑ 40(4).‑‑The Presiding Officer shall open the ballot‑box of each contesting candidates in the alphabetical order of their names and count the ballot‑papers contained in the ballot‑boxes so opened, excluding the invalid ballot‑papers, that is to say, the ballot‑papers‑‑ (a) .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (b) on which anything is. marked or written by the voter by which he card be identified", and argued that according to the above provisions only such ballot‑papers can be declared invalid on which anything is marked or written by the voter sufficiently to identify him and not anything marked or written by anyone else: such as by the polling officer over whom the candidates have no control. In this connection, reliance was placed on a judgment of the Full Court in the case of Niaz Ahmad v. Azizuddin and others PLD 1967 S C 466.
4. However, both sides rely on the portions of the same judgment in their favour. It seems to us that the rule stated therein not only requires to be interpreted and applied in the circumstances of this case but may also require modificat,3n or further amplification.
5. Since the judgment in question has been delivered by s Bench of 5 Judges it appears appropriate that these matters should be heard by ,a larger Bench consisting of at least five Judges.
6. The appeals may, therefore, be placed before his Lordship the Chief justice for necessary orders. We may add that the counsel have prayed that as these are election matters they may be heard on a very early date on the re‑opening of the Court after vacations, even at Rawalpindi. This prayer may also be considered by H.C.J. M.I. Order accordingly.