2006 PLP 1 (YLR)
RAHOO KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus MEHRUDDIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rabbani and Azizullah M. Memon, JJ |
| Parties | RAHOO KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus MEHRUDDIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Local Government Elections Rules, 2000 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Local Government Elections Rules, 2000 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ghulam Rabbani and Azizullah M. Memon, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1 (YLR) (RAHOO KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus MEHRUDDIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazar M. Jamali for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 12th August, 2005.
- Muhammad Sarwar Khan, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh.
Headnotes / Summary
Rr.16 & 18(4)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 199
Constitutional petition
Acceptance of nomination papers
Nomination papers of both parties had been accepted and no appeal was filed by petitioners against acceptance of nomination papers of respondents, but had filed constitutional petition
No cogent reason which could have prevented petitioners from filing appeals before Appellate Authority, had been given
Aggrieved petitioners ought to have availed, in the first place, statutory remedy of appeal, but they failed and opted to invoke constitutional jurisdiction without disclosing any compelling and extraordinary reasons for failure to avail said remedy
Such conduct of petitioners was tantamount to show distrust in statutory authorities/ bodies, meant for the purpose
No order of Returning Officer having been filed by petitioners with constitutional petition, reasons of acceptance of nomination papers of respondents, could not be ascertained and appreciated or otherwise
Constitutional petition being not maintainable, was dismissed accordingly. Muhammad Sarwar Khan, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM RABBANI, J.
Petitioners as well as respondents Nos.1 and 2, according to Mr. Jamali are the contesting candidates for the seat of Nazim and Naib Nazim of Union Council 1, Manzoorabad Taluka Manjhand, District Jamshoro. Nomination papers of both the parties have been accepted as admitted by Mr. Jamali who admits that no appeal was filed by petitioners against the acceptance of nomination paper of respondents Nos.1 and 2 hence they have filed this constitutional petition. Mr. Jamali is not able to assign any cogent reason, which could prevent them from filing appeals before the appellate authority. An aggrieved person ought to avail, in the first place the statutory remedy of appeal in which the petitioner has failed and has opted to invoke constitutional jurisdiction without disclosing any compelling and extraordinary reasons for his failure to avail such remedy. Such conduct on their part is tantamount to show distrust in the statutory authorities/bodies meant for the purpose. Be that as it may, with this constitutional petition no order of the Returning Officer has been filed hence even otherwise in absence thereof the reasons of acceptance of nomination paper of respondents could not be ascertained and appreciated or otherwise. This Constitutional petition is therefore not maintainable and is dismissed in limine along with listed applications. H.B.T./R-52/K Petition dismissed.