2003 PLP 1381 (CLC)
Malik TAHIR MAHMOOD and another — Petitioners Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL FOR RAWALPINDI, DISTRICT ATTOCK and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1381 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Malik TAHIR MAHMOOD and another — Petitioners Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL FOR RAWALPINDI, DISTRICT ATTOCK and 6 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1381 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1381 (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: 2003 PLP 1381 (CLC) (Malik TAHIR MAHMOOD and another — Petitioners Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL FOR RAWALPINDI, DISTRICT ATTOCK and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shoukat Aziz Siddiqui for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 80
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Declaration of unsuccessful candidates as returned candidate-- Prerequisites
Unsuccessful candidates came to know about the disqualification of returned candidates only after the elections were over
Plea raised by unsuccessful candidates was that in place of returned candidates, they should be declared as returned candidates-- Validity
Votes cast by majority could be considered to be thrown away votes only if the disqualification suffered by winning candidate was so notorious that it could, be safely assumed that the majority in spite of being fully aware of the disqualification proceeded to return such candidate
If the unsuccessful candidates, who were in direct contest with the returned candidates, were not aware of the disqualification then it could not be assumed that majority voters were aware of the same-- Once process of election was completed and majority had expressed confidence in the candidates then unless and until disqualification was attributed to the returned candidates or such other grounds as were prescribed by law, were made out, the election of the returned candidates could not be declared to be void
High Court declined to declare the unsuccessful candidates as returned candidates
Petition was dismissed in limine.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Saeed Hassan v. Pyar Ali PLD 1976 SC 6; Lal Muhammad v. Muhammad Usman 1975 SCMR 409 and Muhammad Ilyas v. The Returning Officer and others 1981 SCMR 233 ref. Shoukat Aziz Siddiqui for Petitioner. The petitioners filed an election petition to challenge the election of respondents Nos.2 and 3 to the seats of Nazim and Naib-Nazim in Union Council No.45, Rawalpindi. Vide a judgment dated 29-1-2003 learned Election Tribunal allowed the said election petition and declared the election of respondent No.2 to be void. The petition to the extent of, respondent No.3 was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that learned Election Tribunal ought to have declared his client to be elected instead of the respondent No.2 as Nazim and further that the dismissal of the election petition to the extent of respondent No.3 is void inasmuch as per Rule XVI of the PLGE Rules, 2000, he was liable to be deseated alongwith the Nazim.
3. So far as the said first contention of the learned counsel is concerned, it has been consistently laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that the votes cast by majority can be considered to be thrown away votes only if the disqualification suffered by the winning candidate was so notorious that it could be safely assumed that the majority being fully aware of the said disqualification proceeded to return him. Reference be made to the case of Syed Saeed Hassan v. Pyar Ali PLD 1976 SC 6, Lal Muhammad v. Muhammad Usman 1975 SCMR 409, Muhammad Ilyas v. The Returning Officer and others 1981 SCMR
233. Applying the said tests prescribed by the Honourable Supreme Court, I may suffice by referring to the para. No.10 of the election petition signed and verified on oath by both the petitioners, "that the petitioner came to know about the forged education certificate mentioned above after the election were over". Now if the petitioners who were indirect contest with the said respondent No.2 were not aware of the saga disqualification, how can it be assumed that the majority who returned him was so aware. Needless to state that apart from the said state or pleadings, there is nothing on record to suggest that the majority was aware of the said disqualification.
4. As to the said second contention learned counsel cites judgment in the cases of Nazim, Union Council No.6, Karachi South v. Election Tribunal, Sadar Town, Karachi 2003 MLD 382, Ch. Maqbool Ahmed v. Malik Falik Sher Farooqa, Additional District Judge/Election Tribunal PLD 2003 Lah.
138. Now I find that the learned Election Tribunal has opted to follow a judgment given by this Court in the case of Ch. Maqbool Ahmad v. Malik Falak Sher Farooqa, Additional. District Judge/Election Tribunal PLD 2003 Lah.
138. To my mind learned Election Tribunal has not acted in an irregular manner by following the judgment of the Court which he is subordinate to.
6. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. M.H./T-127/L Petition dismissed.