P L D 1992 Lahore 322 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ATTOCK and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1992 Lahore 322 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Gul Zarin Kiani, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ATTOCK and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1992 Lahore 322 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1992 Lahore 322 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Gul Zarin Kiani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1992 Lahore 322 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ATTOCK and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Inam‑ul‑Haq for Petitioner.
- Altaf Elahi Sheikh for Respondent No. 2
- Date of hearing: 25th ApriI, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑‑ 7S 11(l)(a)(i) ‑Peasant ‑Member of Union Council‑‑Person owning land in village concerned during preceding five years was not qualified to be a peasant Member of Union Council. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑‑‑ Art.199 ‑‑‑ Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.11(1)(a)(i)‑‑ Petition in nature of quo warranto against respondent for having him deseated on ground that he did not qualify to be elected as peasant‑Member of Union Council ‑‑‑ Private Settlement between petitioner and respondent ‑‑‑ Effect‑‑ Public office could not be a subject‑matter of barter or private compromise between parties ‑‑‑ Whenever Court's attention was drawn that a person who was not qualified was holding public office, Court was duty bound to‑ declare that such person was not entitled to that office and to prevent him, from acting as such ‑‑‑ Usurper of public office could not be perpetuated in it.‑‑‑When once Court was satisfied of usurpation of public office by its holder, it would be unwise and also improper exercise of discretion to refrain from interference, notwithstanding compromise between parties. (c) Constitution or Pakistan (1973)‑‑ . I ‑, i ‑‑‑‑ Art. 199 ‑‑‑ Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of ‑‑‑ Matter for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction although lay in discretion, yet discretion like all other judicial powers was regulated by sound reason. (d) Constitution or Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑‑‑‑ Art. 199 ‑‑‑ Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.11(i)(i)‑‑ Writ of quo‑waffanto‑‑‑Peasant‑Mernber of Union Council ‑‑‑ Election of respondent as peasant‑Member was illegal for want of qualification to hold such public office'‑‑‑Despite parties' compromise, Court declared respondent not to be validly returned peasant‑Member of concerned Union Council.
Judgment & Decree
Facts of the case are simple and principle of law applicable to them not obscure. Respondent No.2. was elected to a peasant scat of Union Council Qatbal on 16‑1‑1992. Petitioner submitted an application under Article 199 of the Constitution in nature of a quo‑warranto against respondent No.2 for having him deseated on the ground that he did not qualify to be elected as peasant‑Member of the Union Council. Respondent No.2 submitted a return and defended his title to the seat. On 11‑4‑1992, learned counsel for the parties reported a compromise. Since it was a case in quo warranto, despite private settlement between a relator and holder of a public office, the Court decided to proceed further with the inquiry. Mian Inam‑ul‑Haq, Advocate was asked to assist the Court, independent of stated compromise by his client with respondent No.2. It is common ground and unreservedly conceded by learned counsel for respondent No.2, that respondent No.2, in view of his ownership of the land in village during the preceding rive years was not qualified to be a peasant‑Member of the Union Council. Public office cannot be a subject I matter of barter or private compromise between the parties. It is the duty of," the Court, as soon as its attention is drawn to the fact that a person who is not qualified is holding a public office, to declare that he is not entitled hat office and to prevent him from acting as such. A usurper of public office could not be perpetuated in it. This view is too well‑settled to require any support, from decided case law. If any reference is needed, recourse could be usefully had to cases in Kashinath Laxman Bhide and others v. The State of Bombay AIR 1954 Bombay
41. The University of Mysore v. Govinda. Rao ana another AIR 1965 Supreme Court
491. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that writ of quo‑warranto was in the discretion of the Court, and, upon settlement between the petitioner and respondent No.2, the Court must not interfere. It is no doubt true that the matter for interference in writ jurisdiction C lay in the discretion but discretion like all judicial power was regulated b., sound reason. When once the Court is satisfied of usurpation of public office by its holder, it shall be an unwise and also improper exercise of discretion to D refrain from interference. In view of aforesaid, writ petition is allowed and election of respondent No.2 as a peasant member of Union Council Qatbal of Tehsil Fatch Jang is declared to be illegal. Consequence of. it would be that respondent No.2 shall not be treated as a validly returned Peasant Member of the aforesaid Union Council. Since disqualification ~ was conceded, there shall be no order as to costs of writ petition in this Court. A.AA/M-352/L Petition Accepted