2008 PLP 465 (SCMR)
Malik AHMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER, JHANG and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 465 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ |
| Parties | Malik AHMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER, JHANG and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 465 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 465 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 465 (SCMR) (Malik AHMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER, JHANG and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Ahsan Bhoon, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji M. Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Akbar Tarar, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab and Dr. Danishwar Malik, D.A.-G. for Respondents.
- Naveed Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.4.
- 3. The learned Deputy Attorney-General supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the caveator. However, the learned Additional Advocate-General conceded that petitioner's case is not covered under section 152(1)(h) of the Ordinance.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment, dated 5-8-2005 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.14308 of 2005).
S. 152(1)(h)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Rejection of nomination papers because of removal of candidate from service on charge of inefficiency
Returning Officer accepted nomination papers of petitioner despite such charge against the petitioner
District Returning Officer on accepting appeal filed by the respondents, rejected nomination papers of petitioner and High Court maintained order of District Returning Officer
Mere removal of a person from service on the ground of inefficiency, would not involve the element of moral turpitude
High court as well as the District Returning Officer, could have not interfered in the order of the Returning Officer
Petition was converted into appeal and was allowed
Impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the District Returning Officer, was set aside
Petitioner was allowed to contest election for the office of General Councillor.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ.
It is an admitted fact that petitioner Malik Ahmed Khan was removed from service on the charge of inefficiency. The Returning Officer accepted his nomination papers and the District Returning Officer on accepting the appeal filed by the respondents rejected the nomination papers submitted by him vide order dated 2-8-2005. The learned High Court maintained the order of the District Returning Officer.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner's case is not covered under section 152(1)(h) of the Punkah Local Government Ordinance, 2001, because he was not removed from service on the grounds of moral turpitude. However, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that as he failed to obey the order given by a superior, therefore, he is disqualified to contest the election.
3. The learned Deputy Attorney-General supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the caveator. However, the learned Additional Advocate-General conceded that petitioner's case is not covered under section 152(1)(h) of the Ordinance.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. We are of the considered opinion that mere removal of a person on the ground of inefficiency would not involve the element of moral turpitude, therefore, the learned High Court as well as the District Returning Officer may have not interfered in the order of the Returning Officer.
5. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed, the impugned judgment, as well as the judgment of the District Returning Officer is set aside. The petitioner is allowed to contest the election for the office of General Councillor from Union Council, Kandiwal District Chiniot. The Returning Officer is directed to complete pre-poll process and include the name of the petitioner in the election schedule to be held on 25-8-2005 so that he may participate in the poll in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./A-21/SC Appeal allowed.