2008 PLP 757 (CLC)
SHAHZAM IMRAN KHAN — Petitioner Versus CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD and 12 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 757 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Hamid Ali Shah and Mazhar Hussain Minhas, JJ |
| Parties | SHAHZAM IMRAN KHAN — Petitioner Versus CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD and 12 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 757 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 757 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Hamid Ali Shah and Mazhar Hussain Minhas, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 757 (CLC) (SHAHZAM IMRAN KHAN — Petitioner Versus CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD and 12 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Waqar Haider Awan for petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 14 & 64
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Failure of petitioner to file appeal against acceptance of nomination papers of respondent
Constitutional petition had been filed by the petitioner against acceptance of nomination papers of respondent, despite remedy to file appeal before Election Tribunal was available to him
Failure of petitioner to file appeal to the Election Tribunal was fatal firstly, because candidature of respondent was not a secret matter. secondly objection to nomination and appeal against acceptance to nomination paper was commonly known to every one, especially to those who were interested in the nomination of a candidate; thirdly, the process of election, like scrutiny of nomination, had to be completed within a time frame; fourthly, remedy of appeal before the Election Tribunal was more adequate and convenient and lastly the Representation of the People Act, 1976 had provided a procedure in that respect
Interference in constitutional jurisdiction in present case would render the whole process of scrutiny and nomination of a candidate, as an exercise in futility
Constitutional petition, was dismissed, in circumstances. Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmad Babar v. Chief Election Commission, Islamabad, Pakistan Writ petition No.607 of 2008 fol. Mian Abbas Ahmad, Addl. A.-G. on Court's call.
Judgment & Decree
This single order will dispose writ petition Writ Petition No.638 of 2008 titled Shazam Imran Khan v. Chief Election Commission, Islamabad, Pakistan and others and Writ Petition No.639 of 2008 titled Nawabzada Mansoor Ahmad. Khan v. Chief Election Commission., Islamabad, Pakistan.
2. The question raised in these petitions were urged before a Division Bench of this Court in the case titled Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmad Babar v. Chief Election Commission, Islamabad, Pakistan (Writ Petition No.607 of 2008). The grounds urged in these petitions are identical to the above case and have been answered by this Court as under:-- "Another opportunity was available to the petitioner, to approach the tribunal in appeal. The petitioner has not availed the remedy, available under law. The failure of the petitioner to file appeal against the acceptance of nomination papers of respondent No.6 for various reasons is fatal and the same is not open to exemption in the constitution petition, at this belated stage. Firstly, candidature of respondent No.6 is not a secret matter, Secondly, objection to nomination and appeal against acceptance of nomination papers, is commonly known to every one. Specially to those who are interested in the nomination of the candidate. Thirdly, the process of election, like scrutiny of nomination has to be completed within a time framed. Fourthly, remedy of appeal before the Tribunal is more adequate and convenient, if judged with reference to time, speed and convenience of obtaining relief, comparing it with that of invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. And lastly that law (Act LXXXV of 1976) has provided a procedure. Interference in constitutional jurisdiction will render the whole process of scrutiny and nomination of a candidate, as an exercise in futility.
3. For the foregoing, these petitions are not competent and are accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./S-218/L Petitions dismissed.