1970 PLP 140 (SCMR)
Malik ABDUL RAOOF-Petitioner Versus Khawaja MUHAMMAD SADIQ, ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) AND ELECTION TRIBUNAL, SARGODHA AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1970 PLP 140 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Malik ABDUL RAOOF-Petitioner Versus Khawaja MUHAMMAD SADIQ, ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) AND ELECTION TRIBUNAL, SARGODHA AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Election-Question whether circumstances justified election Tribunal to declare defeated candidate as elected instead of setting aside election as a whole-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 140 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Election-Question whether circumstances justified election Tribunal to declare defeated candidate as elected instead of setting aside election as a whole-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question. as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 140 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 140 (SCMR) (Malik ABDUL RAOOF-Petitioner Versus Khawaja MUHAMMAD SADIQ, ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) AND ELECTION TRIBUNAL, SARGODHA AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. A. Zullah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Fazle Hussain, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents:
- Date of hearing : 2nd October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 9th May 1967, in Writ Petition No. 1334 of 1965).
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.‑A point of substantial importance , arises in this case. The High Court, in Letters Patent appeal has held that an Election Tribunal, when it allows a petition against an election to a Basic Democracy, has complete discretion to decide whether to declare the defeated candidate (there were only two contestants) to have been duly‑elected, or to declare the election void; so that a fresh election becomes necessary. The findings of the Tribunal were as follows :‑ (1) for a period during the polling the lock and seal on one of the ballot boxes were not intact they were secured when the fact was discovered ; (2) Counting of votes was done by the Returning Officer and not by the Presiding Officer as required by law (3) at one polling station, the Polling Officer and a Polling . Clerk, were persons who were, the one indirectly, the other directly, under the authority and influence of a person who was the Election Agent of one candidate ; and (4) the polling camp of this candidate was within 35 yards of the polling booth. In the absence of a finding that any number of votes was affect by any one of these circumstances, it is a question whether the only proper order was not one of avoidance of the election as ale whole. Leave to appeal is granted. Security‑Rs. 1,