1987 PLP 317 (SCMR)
Mian MUHAMMAD MUNIR‑‑Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 317 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mian MUHAMMAD MUNIR‑‑Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 317 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 317 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 317 (SCMR) (Mian MUHAMMAD MUNIR‑‑Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Arif, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 1.
- Zafar Pasha Chaudhary, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
- Date of hearing: 10th December, 1986.
- 2. The main contention of the petitioner in support of this petition is that the irregularities to which the learned Election Tribunal referred could not have materially affected the result of the election and that no evidence was led to show that these irregularities and illegalities had been committed at the instigation or with the connivance of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 does not dispute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has no objection if the orders of the High Court and the learned Election Tribunal are set aside. That being so, we convert this petition into appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and the Election Tribunal and direct that the election petition filed by respondent No. 2 be dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in this petition.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22‑9‑1986 in Writ Petition No. 3215 of 1986. (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Acquiescence‑‑Petitioner seeking setting aside of impugned orders‑‑Respondent having no objection if orders were set aside‑‑Petition converted into appeal and allowed‑‑Impugned order set aside. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, R.14‑‑Election Tribunal's order declaring election as void, challenged‑ Pleas that irregularities to which Tribunal referred could not have materially affected result of election and that no evidence was led to show that alleged irregularities /illegalities had been committed at the instigation or with the connivance of petitioner, not disputed by contesting respondent who had no objection if orders impugned were set aside‑‑Petition converted into appeal, impugned orders set aside and appeal allowed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 were candidates in the election to the Lahore Municipal Corporation from the Electoral Unit No.
55. The petitioner received the highest number of votes and was declared elected. Respondent No. 2 filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal presided over by the Additional District Judge, Lahore. By an order, dated 29‑7‑1986 the Election Tribunal accepted the petition and declared the election void. The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the order of the Election Tribunal. By its judgment and order, dated 22‑9‑1986 the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court.
2. The main contention of the petitioner in support of this petition is that the irregularities to which the learned Election Tribunal referred could not have materially affected the result of the election and that no evidence was led to show that these irregularities and illegalities had been committed at the instigation or with the connivance of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 does not dispute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has no objection if the orders of the High Court and the learned Election Tribunal are set aside. That being so, we convert this petition into appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and the Election Tribunal and direct that the election petition filed by respondent No. 2 be dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in this petition. M. I. Petition dismissed.