1992 PLP 808 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus RETURNING OFFICER‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 PLP 808 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore. |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus RETURNING OFFICER‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 808 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 808 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore. bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 808 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus RETURNING OFFICER‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Noor Ahmed Dhilam for Petitioner.
- Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate‑General Punjab for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Electoral Rolls Act (XXI of 1974)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss.5, 10, 12 & 14‑‑‑Electoral Rolls Rules, 1974, Rr.9, 10 & 14‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Registration of votes‑‑‑Application for‑‑ Applications filed by petitioners for registration of votes, admittedly were disposed of by Authority in a cursory and slip‑shod manner summarily without providing opportunity to petitioners to produce proof that they were residing a'. particular places‑‑‑Right of franchise being one of most valuable rights vested in citizens, Authorities concerned were required to act m a judicious manner High Court directed that application of petitioners be decided afresh after allowing them opportunity of being heard. Date 9f hearing: 28th October, 1991.
Judgment & Decree
This petition has been filed by 88 persons complaining that their applications for registration of votes have not either been disposed of by respondent No.1 or dismissed summarily without providing opportunity to the petitioners to produce proof that they are residing at particular places.
2. The learned Advocate‑General Punjab and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 have been heard. It is evident that the matter has been decided in a cursory and slipshod manner. Secondly, the right of franchise is one of the most valuable rights vested in the citizens and the authorities are required to act in a judicious mannar. In this view of the matter the respondents are directed to dispose of the applications filed by the petitioners afresh after allowing them an opportunity of being heard. The petitioners shall appear before respondent No.1 on 31st of October, 1991 at 9‑30 a.m. H.B.T./M‑125/L Petition allowed/order accordingly.