2006 PLP 2220 (YLR)
MUSHTAQ AHMED alias KALA and another — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NO.1, ABBOTTABD and 7
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2220 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Salim Khan and Hamid Farooq Durrani, JJ |
| Parties | MUSHTAQ AHMED alias KALA and another — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NO.1, ABBOTTABD and 7 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2220 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 2220 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Salim Khan and Hamid Farooq Durrani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2220 (YLR) (MUSHTAQ AHMED alias KALA and another — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NO.1, ABBOTTABD and 7). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Qazi Muhammad Ghazanfar and Abdul Latif Afridi for Petitioners.
- Sher Afghan, D.E.C.H. Division and Saifur Rehman for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
SALIM KHAN, J.
Mushtaq Ahmad alias Kala and Muhammad Farooq contended that respondents Nos. 5 and 6 (Anwarul Haq and Noor-ur-Rehman) were declared as returned candidates for the Offices of Nazim and Naib Nazim, Union Council Jabori, District Mansehra, and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (Khurshid Anwar A and Babu Altaf) challenged the said election through election petition, that petitioners submitted application for their transposition as petitioners as they were runners up but that petition was not accepted. It was further contended that the learned Election Tribunal declared the election of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 as illegal and void and ordered fresh election instead of declaring the petitioners as duly elected candidates. Hence the writ petition.
2. In the light of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and the perusal of record, and relying on our discussion included in the judgment written in Writ Petition No.9 of 2006, we proceed to decide the various points involved in this as follows.
3. The election of the returned candidates could be declared void and has been declared void. The petitioners could not challenge the election except through an election petition in the light of the relevant rule 61 of the N.-W.F.P. Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2005 which they had not submitted within the prescribed period. Their transposition as petitioners would have amounted to condonation of delay without any sufficient reason, if their application was considered as election petition. The petitioners had no right to be transposed as petitioners in the light of the rules, and were not so transposed by the Election Tribunal by due exercise of jurisdiction and proper application of law. The petitioners were strangers before the learned Election Tribunal and could not be provided any remedy on their application. As the learned Election Tribunal has not declared other persons as successful/returned candidates and has ordered holding of fresh elections, the petitioners have no grievance at this stage.
4. We do not find any defect in the impugned order of the learned Election Tribunal, and do not find any merit in the present writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./132/P?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.