2006 PLP 1884 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD LATIF — Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL, KHANEWAL and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1884 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD LATIF — Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL, KHANEWAL and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1884 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1884 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1884 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD LATIF — Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL, KHANEWAL and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Rehman Tariq Khand for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 42 & 54
Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2005, Rr.65 & 76
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Qualification of candidate
Petitioner sought declaration regarding his matriculation certificate and assailed proceedings of Disciplinary Committee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, before a Civil Court
Civil Court issued interim injunction and on the basis of such injunction, the petitioner sought stay of proceedings in election petition but Election Tribunal refused to stay the proceedings
Plea raised by petitioner was that Civil Court being a Court of plenary jurisdiction, its decree was binding on Election Tribunal
Petitioner filed civil suit challenging proceedings before Disciplinary Committee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, without impleading Election Tribunal as party
Interim injunction was -issued by Civil Court with the rider that matriculation certificate of the petitioner would not be cancelled illegally, however, the order was not applicable to any proceedings
Even the Civil Court did not consider it appropriate to stay the proceedings pending before Election Tribunal which were independent proceedings
Election Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to determine eligibility of a candidate to contest the elections in terms of R.76(1)(b) of Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2005
While exercising such jurisdiction, the Tribunal was conferred with the powers of Civil Courts trying a suit under Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order passed by Election Tribunal, neither suffered from any illegality or irregularity nor any jurisdictional defect, calling for interference
Petition was dismissed in limine.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.
Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks annulment of the order, dated 22-6-2006 whereby the learned Election Tribunal-respondent No.1 refused to stay the proceedings of Election Petition titled Nazir Ahmad and another v. Returning Officer and others on the application moved by the petitioner, on the ground that Muhammad Latif petitioner with regard to the authenticity of his matriculation certificate had filed a civil suit and that till the matter was finally decided, proceedings in the election petition be stayed.
2. The impugned order of the learned Election Tribunal dated 22-6-2006 has been perused.
3. When questioned, as to how proceedings in the election petition could be legally stayed till the decision of the suit, whereas in terms of Rule 65 of Punjab Local Government (Elections) Rules, 2005 and the law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Ch. Nazir Ahmad and others v. Chief Election Commissioner and 4 others PLD 2002 SC 184, all the election disputes could only be decided/resolved by Election Tribunal and that the jurisdiction of all the Courts including High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution was barred in such-like matters, learned counsel had no answer except to argue that since civil Court was a Court of plenary jurisdiction and the decree issued by the said Court was binding on the Election Tribunal, hence the learned Election Tribunal was bound to stay the proceedings. However, the learned counsel has not been able to cite any law, provision of law or case-law in support of his contention. Even otherwise, the petitioner has filed a civil suit challenging the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, without impleading the election petitioners as party and that the interim injunction was issued by the civil Court with the rider that matriculation certificate of the petitioner would not be cancelled illegally, however, the said order would not be applicable to any proceedings, meaning thereby, even the civil Court did not consider it appropriate to stay the proceedings pending before the learned Election Tribunal which are independent proceedings and the Election Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the eligibility of a candidate to contest the election in terms of Rules 76(1)(b) of the Punjab Local Government (Elections) Rules, 2005 and while exercising this jurisdiction the learned Election Tribunal has been conferred the powers of Civil Court trying a suit under Civil Procedure Code. In this view of the matter, I am satisfied that the impugned order, dated 22-6-2006 passed by learned Election Tribunal-respondent No.1 neither suffers from any illegality or irregularity nor any jurisdictional defect, calling for interference. This writ petition, therefore, is dismissed in limine. M.H./M-456/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.