1991 PLP 1861 (SCMR)
Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1861 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1861 (SCMR)?
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 1991 PLP 1861 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1861 (SCMR) (Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 23rd September, 1989.
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 27-6-1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.2138 of 1989).
S. 24
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
After Election Tribunal had dismissed election petition of petitioner, Tribunal, was left with no jurisdiction to order a recount of ballot papers
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was a candidate from electoral Unit No. 40 in the election to the Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad. He lost the election whereupon he filed an election petition. His petition was dismissed on a technical ground. He filed a Constitution petition in the High Court but that too failed. He then filed another application before the Election Tribunal seeking recount. This too was dismissed. He again moved the High Court in the Constitution jurisdiction but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Thus petition is clearly misconceived. After the learned Election Tribunal had dismissed his election petition, it was left with no jurisdiction to order a recount of the ballot‑papers. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1205/S Petition dismissed.