2018 PLP 1664 (CLC)
FAZAL MEHMOOD — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 PLP 1664 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAZAL MEHMOOD — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 1664 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 1664 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 1664 (CLC) (FAZAL MEHMOOD — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- Sh. Usman Karim-ud-Din for Respondent No.3.
- Imran Arif Ranjha and Ch. Naeem Sarwar for Respondent ECP.
- 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the ineligibility of the petitioner is perpetual in nature and cannot come to an end by efflux of time. He has placed reliance on a judgment reported as Sami Ullah Blaoch and others v. Abdul Karim Nousherwani and others (PLD 2018 SC 405).
- 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 invites us to infer that the findings of the Election Tribunal rendered in Election Appeal No.140-A of 2007 in fact amount to a declaration that petitioner is not sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen. We are, however, not prepared to indulge in any such exercise. Unless a declaration in positive language contemplated by Article 62(1)(f) is given by a Court, it cannot be inferred from order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, which order in any event was passed ex-parte against the petitioner. Similarly, only a declaration under Article 62(1)(f) operates in perpetuality precluding a candidate from contesting any future elections, which declaration was never passed against the petitioner. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner also does not support his contention.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.62 & 63
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.62(1)(f)
Qualification for membership of Parliament (Majlis-e-Shoora)
Rejection of nomination papers
Scope
Nomination papers of candidate were rejected on the ground that in an earlier round of litigation Election Tribunal had declared him ineligible to contest the elections
Contention of respondents was that ineligibility of candidate was perpetual in nature and could not come to an end by efflux of time
Unless a declaration in positive language contemplated by Art.62(1)(f) of the Constitution was given by a Court, it could not be inferred that candidate was not sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen
Only a declaration under Art.62(1)(f) of the Constitution operated in perpetuality precluding a candidate from contesting any future elections
Constitutional petition was allowed, impugned order of Election Tribunal was set-aside, and direction was issued to Returning Officer to include the name of the candidate in the list of eligible candidates.
Judgment & Decree
This writ petition calls into question order dated 26.06.2018 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal whereby election appeal filed by respondent No.5 was allowed and nomination papers of the petitioner were rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sent a written request for adjournment as he is stated to be busy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We are not inclined to adjourn this case and propose to decide the same on the basis of the available record.
3. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the nomination papers of petitioner were rejected on the ground that in an earlier round of litigation the learned Appellate Tribunal on 11.12.2007 declared the provisional certificate of BA submitted by the petitioner to be fabricated thus holding him ineligible to contest the elections.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the ineligibility of the petitioner is perpetual in nature and cannot come to an end by efflux of time. He has placed reliance on a judgment reported as Sami Ullah Blaoch and others v. Abdul Karim Nousherwani and others (PLD 2018 SC 405).
5. We have perused order dated 11.12.2007 passed in election appeal No.140-A/2007 titled Shahida Sattar v. Fazal Mehmood and others which shows that the then Election Tribunal did not pass any declaration of the nature contemplated by Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the Constitution).
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 invites us to infer that the findings of the Election Tribunal rendered in Election Appeal No.140-A of 2007 in fact amount to a declaration that petitioner is not sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen. We are, however, not prepared to indulge in any such exercise. Unless a declaration in positive language contemplated by Article 62(1)(f) is given by a Court, it cannot be inferred from order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, which order in any event was passed ex-parte against the petitioner. Similarly, only a declaration under Article 62(1)(f) operates in perpetuality precluding a candidate from contesting any future elections, which declaration was never passed against the petitioner. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner also does not support his contention.
7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and order dated 26.06.2018 is set aside. Resultantly the nomination papers of the petitioner are accepted. The Returning Officer is directed to include the name of the petitioner in the list of eligible candidates. Copy Dasti as per usual charges. SA/F-10/L Petition accepted.