P L D 1999 Lahore 181 (PLP)
SHAHID RASHID ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NASIR SIDDIQUE ALVI and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1999 Lahore 181 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry and Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi, JJ |
| Parties | SHAHID RASHID ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NASIR SIDDIQUE ALVI and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1999 Lahore 181 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1999 Lahore 181 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry and Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1999 Lahore 181 (PLP) (SHAHID RASHID ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NASIR SIDDIQUE ALVI and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Election petition‑‑‑Constitutional petition seeking transfer of election petition pending adjudication before one Election Tribunal to some other Election Tribunal‑‑‑Contentions of petitioner were that Election Tribunal had passed a number of orders which created genuine apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he will not get fair and impartial trial of the Election petition; that respondent earlier moved an application for suspension of the notification of election of the petitioner but the same was dismissed by a well- considered and detailed judgment but subsequently another petition was filed and Election Tribunal proceeded to issue notice to the petitioner; that the petitioner moved Election Authority for transfer of Election petition but the same had been dismissed and that there were lot of complaints and number of transfer applications against the said Election Tribunal and he did not enjoy confidence of the people‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Held, nothing on record was available to indicate that the Election Tribunal was not proceeding impartially or he had inclination towards the respondent‑‑‑Election Tribunal having dismissed earlier application of respondent by a detailed order it had to justify his order to be passed on fresh application for stay‑‑‑Election Tribunal had to jealously guard his reputation‑‑ Petitioner Paving failed to make out a case in the Constitutional jurisdiction for interference, petition' was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf for Petitioner. The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed for transfer of Election Petition No. 16 of 1998 pending‑ adjudication before respondent No.5 to some other Election Tribunal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent No.5 has passed a number of orders which create genuine apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he will not get fair and impartial trial of the election petition. It is added that respondent No. l earlier moved an application for suspension of the notification of election of the petitioner but the same was dismissed vide order, dated 5th of October, 1998 by a well‑considered and detailed judgment but subsequently another petition was filed and the respondent No.5 proceeded to issue notice to the petitioner. It is added that the petitioner moved respondent I No.6 for the transfer of the Election Petition but the same has been dismissed i vide order, dated 10th of November, 1998, which is no order in the eyes of law.
3. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments and gone to the record. There is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent No.5 is not proceeding impartially or he has inclination towards the respondent No.l. The arguments that the stay application was earlier dismissed and now again notice has been issued in the fresh application. Suffice it is to observe that the respondent No.5 dismissed the earlier application already by detailed order, dated 5th of October, 1998 and he has to justify his order to be passed on the fresh application for stay.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there are lot of complaints and a number of transfer applications against the respondent No.5. It is alleged that he does not enjoy confidence of the people. Suffice it is to observe here that respondent No.5 shall jealously guard his reputation.
5. In the circumstances, the petitioner has failed to make out a case in the Constitutional jurisdiction for interference, therefore, the petition is dismissed in limine. M.B.A./S‑285/L Petition dismissed.