1986 PLP 348 (SCMR)
Sh. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR AHMAD and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 348 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Sh. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR AHMAD and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 348 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 348 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 348 (SCMR) (Sh. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR AHMAD and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sharif Hussain Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th October, 1985
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment, dated 8‑10‑1985 of Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 24 of 1985). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Election‑‑Petitioner persuaded Election Tribunal to adopt a particular course for determining question as to which of two contesting candidates had received majority votes and Tribunal acting upon agreed arrangement‑‑Petitioner, held, could not be allowed to question propriety of Tribunal in acting upon a course suggested to it by himself‑‑Order of High Court dismissing petitioner's writ petition in discretionary writ jurisdiction maintained‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑In an Election Petition filed by the respondent challenging the election of the petitioner and claiming that he was entitled to be declared as the elected candidate, the Election Tribunal accepted the suggestion made by the petitioner of how the Tribunal may proceed to determine this question and proceeded to decide the petition in accordance therewith. The Tribunal found ‑ that the respondent was entitled to be declared as the elected candidate and held accordingly. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Election Tribunal in the High Court by filing a writ petition. This was rejected as the High Court held that the arrangement agreed to by the parties and acted upon by the Election Tribunal was neither repugnant to any law, nor unconscionable nor against the public policy. The aforesaid judgment of the High Court is challenged by the present petition. We consider that the High Court was right in not interfering with the order of the Election Tribunal. The parties, principally the petitioner, had persuaded the Election Tribunal to adopt a particular course for determining the question as to which of the two contesting candidates had received the majority of votes. Having done so, the petitioner could not be allowed to question the propriety of the Tribunal in acting upon a course suggested to it by himself. In the above circumstances, the petitioner could not be granted any relief by the High Court in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction. His writ petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court and the decision of the High Court being unexceptionable no interference therewith by this Court is warranted. This petition is dismissed. M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.