2006 PLP 733 (YLR)
Ch. MUHAMMAD ARSHAD MEHMOOD and another — Petitioners Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL/DISTRICT JUDGE, KHANEWAL and 6
| Citation | 2006 PLP 733 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD ARSHAD MEHMOOD and another — Petitioners Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL/DISTRICT JUDGE, KHANEWAL and 6 |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 733 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 733 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 733 (YLR) (Ch. MUHAMMAD ARSHAD MEHMOOD and another — Petitioners Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL/DISTRICT JUDGE, KHANEWAL and 6). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Abbas Ahmad for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Arif Alvi for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Rr. 43 & 73
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Suspension of operation of order of Election Tribunal
Application for
Applicant had prayed that operation of order passed by Election Tribunal and oath taken by respondents be suspended
Had respondents not taken oath, considering good prima facie case of applicant, it would have certainly suspended operation of impugned Notification, but since respondents had already taken oath and were performing their duties, it was not appropriate to suspend Notification as prayed for by the applicant. 2002 SCMR 1551 ref.
Judgment & Decree
C.M. No.2 of 2004 MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.
Through this application petitioner wants that operation of the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 1-4-2004, consequent Notification dated 8-4-2004 and as a result thereof oath taken by the respondent on 10-4-2004 be suspended.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to case reported in 2002 SCMR 1551, contends that in an identical case when the writ petition was admitted by this Court and refused to suspend the impugned Notification their Lordships had suspended the operation of the Notification during pendency of the writ petition before this Court.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the distinguishing feature in the instant case and that of reported case is that in the said case by that time only Notification had been issued and Oath had not been administered to the Candidate who was declared to be successful by the learned Tribunal.
4. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant papers.
5. In para.4 of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is categorically noted by their Lordships that the respondent had not taken oath of the office. In the instant case, it is admitted fact that respondent had taken oath on 10-4-2004. Therefore, the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the instant case. Had the respondents not taken oath, considering good prima facie case of the petitioner I would have certainly suspended the operation of the impugned Notification but since the respondents have already taken oath and are performing their duties. Therefore, I do not deem it appropriate to suspend the Notification. In these circumstances, this application is dismissed. H.B.T./M-1231/L Application dismissed.