1992 PLP 809 (MLD)
NISAR QUTUB‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RETURNING OFFICER‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 PLP 809 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | NISAR QUTUB‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RETURNING OFFICER‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 809 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 809 (MLD)?
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: 1992 PLP 809 (MLD) (NISAR QUTUB‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RETURNING OFFICER‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sardar Shaukat Ali for Petitioner.
- Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate‑General, Punjab for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th October, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Electoral Rolls Act (XXI of 1974)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss.6 & 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Correction of name of voter in electoral roll‑‑‑Petitioner had contended that earlier he filed application with Authority to correct his name in electoral roll, but no action had been taken thereon by the Authority‑‑‑Authority stated that if petitioner filed afresh application, same would be disposed of strictly in accordance with law on its own merit‑‑‑Constitutional petition was disposed of with direction that petitioner could approach respondent Authority for correction of relevant entry by filing an application, which if filed, would be disposed of by Authority with due promptitude in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeks a direction to the respondents that the name of the petitioner which appears in the electoral rolls as `Qutab' be corrected as `Nisar Qutab', which is the correct name of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, an application was filed on 29th August, 1991 by the petitioner with the same prayer before the Assistant Commissioner, but no action has been taken thereon.
2. Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, learned Advocate‑General, who is present on behalf of the respondents, states that if the petitioner files a fresh application, it shall be disposed of strictly in accordance with law on its own merit. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner may approach the respondents for correction of the relevant entry by filing an application, which, if filed, shall be disposed of with due promptitude in accordance with law. There shall be no orders as to costs. H.B.T./N‑20/L Order accordingly.