1968 SCMR 41 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR QAMAR-Petitioner Versus Sh. ALLAH WASAYA AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 41 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR QAMAR-Petitioner Versus Sh. ALLAH WASAYA AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 41 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 41 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 41 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR QAMAR-Petitioner Versus Sh. ALLAH WASAYA AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Aftab Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (R. A. Jeremy, Advocate, Supreme Court with him) instructed by M. Siddiq Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
- D. M. Awan and Pervaiz Akhiar, Advocates Supreme Court instructed by M. B. Khizar Tamimi, Attorney for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On Appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 6th November 1967, in Writ Petition No. 86 of 1967). Election-Election petition-Tribunal, on mere conclusion of "confusion" with regards to certain votes, cast, directing holding of fresh election-High Court, on writ petition, quashing Tribunal's order, recording own findings as to validity of votes and declaring result-Special have to appeal-Granted to consider whether, in writ jurisdiction, High Court could assume Tribunal's duty of pronouncing upon validity of votes in question-Constitution of Pakistan, (1962), Art. 98.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.-It is represented that the Tribunal failed to give decisions on the basic point, namely, whether any and if so which of the votes cast in the election were to be rejected, and on a mere conclusion of "confusion," directed the holding of a fresh election. When the matter came before the High Court, the learned Judges quashed the Tribunal's order recording their own findings as to the validity of the two votes in question, and declared a result. It is urged with force that in the writ jurisdiction, the function his not to decide matters which have been left undecided by the quasi-judicial authority below, but to check the proceeding for validity, against the relevant law, and to give directions to enable that authority to reach proper conclusions in accordance with law. The Tribunal had mentioned the arguments for and against the validity of the votes in question, and had made observations, which could be construed as opinions, but these were not unequivocal and the result, namely, the order directing a fresh election was a clear indication that the Tribunal had not found either for or against the validity of either vote. The position was that if both were found good, the election of the petitioner Muhammad Anwar Qamar as declared by the Returning Officer would hold good. If one were declared invalid, his election would still be good, for it was declared after drawing of lots following the rejection of one of his votes by the Returning Officer. If both votes were found so be bad, the opposite-party, namely Allah Wasaya would be declared elected. There was no such 'confusion' as the Tribunal purported to find, and the order, for afresh election could not therefore be supported, but it was not for the High Court to assume the Tribunal's duty of pronouncing upon the validity of the two votes in question. There is substance in these contentions. We grant leave to appeal as prayed. Security-Rs. 1,
000. Let the case be prepared with speed for as early a hearing as possible. Concise statements, are dispensed with, but may be added to the record, if furnished before the actual date of hearing.