1993 CLC 921 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MAHMUD KHALID and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 CLC 921 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MAHMUD KHALID and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 CLC 921 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 CLC 921 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 CLC 921 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MAHMUD KHALID and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Sarfraz‑ul‑Hassan for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.l and 3.
- Syed Zamir Hussain for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 4th November, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Rr. 5(3) & 9(a)‑‑‑Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 24‑‑‑Election petition‑‑‑Dismissal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioner's election petition was rejected summarily on the ground that documents annexed with the election petition had not been signed and verified by the petitioner in the manner as required by R. 9(a), Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979‑‑ Perusal of order passed by Election Tribunal showed that same fell short of legal requirements‑‑‑None of the petitioners' contentions was examined by Election Tribunal before proceeding to reject the same‑‑‑Election Tribunal on the face of the record acted mechanically and in a slipshod manner by dismissing election petition without first determining whether documents in question, were annexures or schedule to the election petition within meaning of R. 5(3) and whether the provisions of R. 9(a), Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, were directory or mandatory in nature‑‑ Impugned order whereby election petition was rejected was declared to be illegal and without lawful authority‑‑‑Case was remanded to Election Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law‑‑‑Respondents could raise objections as to non‑compliance of provisions of R. 5(3), Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, before Election Tribunal and such objection if raised would be decided in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents Nos.l and
3. Syed Zamir Hussain for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing: 4th November, 1992. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question the order passed by the Election Tribunal, Gujranwala on 5‑7‑1992, whereby he summarily dismissed the election petition filed by the petitioner under section 24 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, challenging the election of the respondent No.1 as Councilor of Ward No. 34 of Halqa Khiali, Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala, on the ground that the documents annexed with the election petition had not been signed and verified by the petitioner in the manner as required by 9(a) of the Election Petition Rules, 1979.
2. Mr. Sarfraz‑ul‑Hassan Adv. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no violation of rule 9(a) of the Election Petition Rules, 1979 and the documents filed with the election petition were duly signed and verified. The other contention of the learned counsel is that the provisions of rules 5 and 9 of the Punjab Election Petition Rules, 1979 are not imperative and non‑compliance thereof should not be visited with extreme penalty of dismissal of the election petition. His last contention is that the documents which were filed with the election petition were neither annexures nor schedule to the petition and therefore the petition could have not dismissed by the Election Tribunal.
3. Mr. Zamir Hussain Adv. learned counsel for the contesting respondent has controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the word "may" appearing in rule 9 is to be interpreted as mandatory and after having found the violation of the aforesaid t ale, the Election Tribunal had no other option but to dismiss the election petition.
4. A perusal of the order passed by the Election Tribunal shows that it falls short of legal requirements. None of the contentions of the petitioner was examined by the Election Tribunal before proceeding to reject the election petition. The Tribunal on the face of the record, acted mechanically and in a slipshod manner by proceeding to dismiss the election petition without first determining whether the documents in question were annexures or schedule to the election petition within the meaning of rule 5(3) and whether the provisions of rule 9(a) of the Election Petitions Rules,, 1979, were directory or mandatory in nature. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed the impugned order is declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. The case is remanded to the Election Tribunal, Gujranwala who shall decide it afresh in accordance with law. It shall be open to the respondents to raise objection as to the non‑compliance of provisions of rule 5(3) before the Election Tribunal and such objection if raised shall be decided in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.