1986 PLP 298 (SCMR)
ABDUL WAHID‑‑Petitioner Versus THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL, SARGODHA and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 298 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah, Zaffar Hussain Mirza and M.S.H. Qureshi, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL WAHID‑‑Petitioner Versus THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL, SARGODHA and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 298 (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 1986 PLP 298 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah, Zaffar Hussain Mirza and M.S.H. Qureshi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 298 (SCMR) (ABDUL WAHID‑‑Petitioner Versus THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL, SARGODHA and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Akram Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Dr. Danishwar Malik, Advocate Supreme ‑Court with S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 31st October, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18‑4‑1984, passed in Writ Petition No. 1547 of 1984). ‑‑‑S. 24‑‑Misprint in electoral list‑‑Rectification of mistake being late, confusion prevailed during elections‑‑Order of Tribunal allowing election petition on ground of confusion that prevailed, upheld. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ Abdul Wahid petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned . Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 15‑4‑1984. in an election case.
2. The facts, briefly, are that Electoral Unit of Chak No. 23‑A/S.B. consists of 3 units, i.e. Units Nos. 6, 7 and
8. The petitioner alongwith respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and many other persons, filed his nomination papers for election from Electoral Unit No. 7, which were duly accepted by the Returning Officer and even a symbol was issued to him. It appears that there was a misprint in the electoral list inasmuch as Electoral Unit No. 7 was shown as Electoral Unit No. 8 in the index of the electoral list. The mistake was, however, rectified by an amendment, vide order, dated 13‑9‑1983, but the amendment was to late that utter confusion prevailed during the election. The same was, therefore, challenged through an election petition which was allowed. Feeling aggrieved Abdul Wahid petitioner filed a writ petition which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Hence the present petition.
3. We have heard the petitioner's counsel and have also gone through the impugned judgment of the High Court. We are inclined to agree with the conclusion reached by the High Court and as such do not consider it a fit case for interference. The petition is consequently dismissed. M. I. Leave refused.