1991 PLP 468 (SCMR)
Syed GHULAM MUJTABA — Petitioner Versus THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE/ELECTION TRIBUNAL and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 468 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian, JJ |
| Parties | Syed GHULAM MUJTABA — Petitioner Versus THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE/ELECTION TRIBUNAL and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 468 (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 468 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 468 (SCMR) (Syed GHULAM MUJTABA — Petitioner Versus THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE/ELECTION TRIBUNAL and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1990.
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 18-12-1989 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in W.P. No. 90 of 1989).
S. 24
Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979, Rr. 72 & 73-- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Election Tribunal had declared election as a whole to be void, and ordered holding of fresh election
Petitioner's Constitutional petition against holding of fresh election and declaring his election as a whole to be void was dismissed by High Court
Leave to appeal was granted to examine petitioner's contention that none of the corrupt and illegal practices listed in Rr. 72 and 73, Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules 1979, were either alleged or proved before Election Tribunal-- Nothing was available on record to indicate that disputed votes were cast in favour of petitioner, therefore, case proceeded on no evidence.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The election to a local seat from Ward No.7, Town Committee, Sohawa, District Jhelum, was held on 30‑11‑1987. The petitioner and the respondent No.2 contested the election. The petitioner was declared elected having polled 227 votes against 226 votes polled by respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal. As many as 7 issues were framed by the Election Tribunal. Issue No.4 was decided against the petitioner and all other issues were decided against the respondent.
2. The Election Tribunal declared the election as a whole void and ordered the holding of fresh election. The petitioner filed a Constitution petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on 18‑12‑1989. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.
3. The controversy in this petition is that three female voters who did not belong to Ward No.7 cast their votes in this election. Their names had been deleted from the voters' list. There was difference of two votes only. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Election Tribunal has declared that the election was not conducted in a fair manner. Extensive illegal practices were adopted. The learned counsel has referred to Rules 72 and 73 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979 and submitted that none of the corrupt and illegal practices listed in these rules were either alleged or proved before the Election Tribunal. It was further submitted that there was nothing on the record to indicate that these votes were cast in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the case proceeded on no evidence.
4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel require examination. Leave is granted. Security Rs.5,
000. Elections are stayed in the meanwhile.
5. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents if they so desire. A.A./G‑275/S Leave granted.