1985 PLP 87 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ILYAS — Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 87 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zafarullah and Fazl-i-Mahmood, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ILYAS — Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 87 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 87 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Zafarullah and Fazl-i-Mahmood, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 87 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ILYAS — Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaukat Ali Mehr for Petitioner.
- Khan Muhammad Bajwa for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 13th May, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
S.24--Election Tribunal, jurisdiction of--Election Tribunal, held, was under legal obligation to go in questions of allegations covered by S.24 made by petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
Khan Muhammad Bajwa for Respondent No.
2. Date of hearing: 13th May, 1985. MUHAMMAD ZAFARULLAH, J.--This judgment will dispose of following writ petitions as common questions of law and facts are involved:- (1) W.P. No.404 of 1984. (2) W.P. No.406 of 1984. (3)W.P. No.407 of 1984.
2. The petitioners challenged the elections to the Local Councils in three different election petitions but the petitions were dismissed by the learned Election Tribunal Sialkot vide his order dated 12-12-1983 on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to go into the allegations covered by section 21-A of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners agrees that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to inquire into the allegations covered by section 21-A but it is contended that the Election Tribunal was under a legal obligation to dispose of the allegations in the nature of corrupt and illegal practice covered by section 24 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, made by the petitioners in the election petitions. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, argues that the allegations covered by section 24 are vague and the three election petitions were liable to be dismissed on this ground. We need not go into this question as it is a matter to be decided by the Election Tribunal. Suffice it to say that the Election Tribunal has to go in the questions of allegations covered by section 24 made by the petitioners. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The matter is remanded to the Election Tribunal to decide afresh the election petitions in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs as the respondent does not contest this proposition. H . B . T . Writs allowed.