1983 PLP 232 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL‑Apellant Versus SURKHROO KHAN MALIK AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 232 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Gul Muhammad Khan and Ghazanfar Ali Gondal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL‑Apellant Versus SURKHROO KHAN MALIK AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 232 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 232 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Gul Muhammad Khan and Ghazanfar Ali Gondal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 232 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL‑Apellant Versus SURKHROO KHAN MALIK AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Khan for Petitioner.
- Ch. Ihsanul Haq for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing : 16th May, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑ ‑ S. 21 (f) [as amended by Punjab Local Government (Amendment) ‑Ordinance (1V of 1981)]‑Election ‑ Disqualification‑Contention that respondent retired from Army in 1978 as such disqualified for election under S. 21(f )‑Such disqualification removed retrospectively by Ordinance, IV of 1981‑Respondent, held, validly and lawfully held office.
Judgment & Decree
GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑The petitioner who is a voter has filed this petition in the nature of quo warranto with a prayer that respondent No. 1 may be directed to produce the warrant under which he is holding the public office of Member of Union Council, Uchalli, District Sargodha. The precise objection is that the respondent being a Subedar retired from the Pakistan Army, in the year 1978 was disqualified under section 21 (f) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979.
2. The contention, however, does not have any force now in view of the subsequent amendment brought by Ordinance IV of 1981. It is provided in section 21 (2), as it stands now as under :‑ "(2) Any person who, immediately before the commencement of the Punjab Local Government (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981, was suffering from a disqualification which has been removed by virtue of the proviso to clause (f) of subsection (1), or who has been removed from such membership by any authority or tribunal cons tituted under any provision of the Ordinance or by any decree, judgment or order of any Court on the grounds of said disqualifica tion shall, notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary in this Ordinance, be eligible to be a candidate or a member of a Local Council." The second part of the proviso to clause (f) of section 21 (1) on the other hand, reads :‑ Provided that this disqualification shall not be applicable to‑ (2) a person who has resigned or has been retired or removed. otherwise than by way of punishment, from service of the Federal Government or a Provincial Government or a Local authority other than the one in which that person is a candidate for election." The above provisions, therefore, do take away the disqualification retrospectively and consequently the respondent is validly and lawfully holding the said public office. This petition, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.