1982 PLP 1 (CLC)
ABDUR RASHID‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 1 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Gul Muhammad Khan and Khurshid Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUR RASHID‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 1 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 1 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Gul Muhammad Khan and Khurshid Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 1 (CLC) (ABDUR RASHID‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Wahid Chaudhry for Petitioner.
- A. W. Butt for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing : 24th November, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑ ‑‑‑ Ss. 21 (f ), 24 & 29‑Election‑Disqualification of respondent (a depot‑holder) occurring on a date prior to election‑Respondent's case either covered under S. 24 of Ordinance or writ petition of quo warranto made before High Court would lie‑Jurisdiction of Commis sioner under S. 29 specific with regard to disqualification during election or thereafter‑Commissioner, held, could not entertain petition challenging election of respondent‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.‑[Writ]. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑‑ Art. 199 and Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 21 (f)‑Election‑Depot‑holder‑Respondent resigning from his position as a depot‑holder during pendency of his appeal before Secretary and consequently ceasing to be depot‑holder on date of filing writ petition‑Interference declined. Ghulam Muhammad v. Returning Officer 1981 C L C 234 ref.
Judgment & Decree
GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑The respondent No. 2 was elected as a member of Local Council, Chak No. 193/P, Tehsil Sadiqabad, District Rahim Yar Khan on 25th of September, 1979. The petitioner challenged that membership under section 29 of the Local Government Ordinance, before the Commissioner, on the ground that he being a depot‑holder was disqualified. The Commissioner accepted his contention and removed the respondent from that public office vide his order dated 11th of August, 1980.
2. The respondent No. 2 challenged that order in an appeal which succeeded before the Secretary, vide order dated 11th of August, 1980. The result was that the respondent was re‑instated for the reason that the disqualification incurred by him being prior to his election under section 29 of the Local Government Ordinance, 1979. This order is being challenged through the present writ petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that as the respondent was disqualified under section 21 (f ) of the Local Government Ordinance, 1979 read with para. 10 (2) (b) (8) of the President's (Post Proclamation Order 5), the Secretary erred in law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner.
4. It is admitted that the disqualification of the respondent was of date prior to the election. His case could, therefore, either be covered under section 24 of the Local Government Ordinance or a petition of quo warranto made before the Court would lie. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 29 on the other hand, is specific with regard to disqualification as had been incurred, during the election or thereafter. In this view of the matter, the Commissioner could not entertain that petition. The order of the Secretary is, therefore, not exceptionable.
5. The other important aspect of the case is that the respondent had resigned from his position as a depot‑holder. It means that he refused to utilize the authorisation issue in his name. This was done during the pendency of the appeal before the Secretary. Consequently, the respondent was not a depot‑holder on the date when this petition was filed. As we have already taken a view not to interfere in such cases in Ghulam Mohammad v. Returning Officer (1981 C L C 234) we do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.