1982 PLP 725 (CLC)
SUHRAB‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD AND 4 others — ‑Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 725 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and B. G. N. Kazi, JJ |
| Parties | SUHRAB‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD AND 4 others — ‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sind Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules 1979‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 725 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules 1979‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 725 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and B. G. N. Kazi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 725 (CLC) (SUHRAB‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD AND 4 others — ‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rafique Khanzada for Petitioner.
- Abdul Sattar Shaikh, Add]. A.‑G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 25th August 1981.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Rr. 67 & 68‑Rejection of petition‑Petition filed without verifica tion on oath as required under r. 67‑Held: Election Authority competent to reject petition and not Election Tribunal‑Term `Election Authority' in r. 68 used in contrast to Election Tribunal‑Power to Election Authority under r. 68(1) to dismiss petition on account of non‑compliance with provisions of preceding Rules cannot be exercised by Election Tribunal.‑[Interpretation of statutes].
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑This petition is directed against the order dated 3rd January 1981 passed by Syed Ali Madad Shah, District Judge Hyderabad in Election Petition No. 15 of 1979. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that respondent 1 Subrab son of Dhani Bux filed legal objections dated 26‑8‑1980 on the following grounds; (1) That the petition as framed is not maintainable for want of manda tory notice to the respondent under rule 66(b) of the Sind Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979. (2) That the petitioner has violated rules 66 and 67. (3) The election is barred by law. Before the Election Tribunal it was contended that under rule 66, clause (b) a copy of the petition was to be served on the candidate against whom the petition was to be filed. The above contention was repelled by the learned Election Tribunal, in view of the language employed in rule E6 which does not provide the time for the service of the copy of the Election Petition. It was therefore held that the copy of the Election Petition could be served, even after filing of the same. The next contention which was advanced before the learned Election Tribunal was that the verification of application was not on oath in terms of rule
67. The above contention was also rejected on the ground that under rule 67, it is the Election Authority which can reject the Election Petition for non‑compliance of the provisions of rule 67 under rule
68. No other argument was advanced before the learned Election Tribunal.
2. In support of the above petition Mr. Rafique Khanzada, learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions; (1) That in any case the learned Election Tribunal should have rejected the petition as admittedly there was no verification of the petition on oath as was required under rule
67. In our view, the above contention is devoid of any force as rule 68 refers to the Election Authority which is competent to reject the petition for non compliance of the provisions of rule 67 and not the Election Tribunal. A perusal of the rules from 68 onwards, will indicate that the term "Election Authority" has been used in contrast to the Election Tribunal and, therefore, if the power is given to the Election Authority under rule 68(1) to dismiss the petition on account of non‑compliance with the provision of the preceding Rules, the same cannot be exercised by the Election Tribunal. We do not se any merit in the above petition. The same is dismissed, but there will be n order as to costs. The Election Tribunal shall proceed with the Election Petition on merits. M. Y M. Petition dismissed.