1999 PLP 1563 (SCMR)
GHULAM RABBANI — Petitioner Versus Malik AHMED KHAN and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 1563 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM RABBANI — Petitioner Versus Malik AHMED KHAN and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1563 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 1563 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 1563 (SCMR) (GHULAM RABBANI — Petitioner Versus Malik AHMED KHAN and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. M. Mohy-ud-Din Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Rana M. Arif, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 31st July, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 4-6-1998 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 10479 of 1998).
S.24
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199
Constitutional petition before High Court
Interference by Supreme Court-- High Court by its interim order suspended notification whereby petitioner was declared as returned candidate
Petitioner had contended that in view of efficacious remedy by filing Election petition under S.24 of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, Constitutional petition before High Court was not maintainable
Order suspending notification passed by High Court was subject to notice which was of interim nature and Supreme Court would not interfere with such interim orders
Petitioner might approach High Court for redress of his grievance.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
This petition is directed against the order dated 4-6-1998 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 10479 of 1998.
2. The dispute herein relates to election of Ward No.23, Zila Council Mianwali. The petitioner was declared as returned candidate vide Notification dated 2-6-1998 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Mianwali. Respondent No. I herein has filed a Constitution Petition before the Lahore High Court, Lahore with the following prayer:
"In view of above submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that the petitioner be not restrained to contest election from the Ward No.23, District Council, Mianwali. Further direction be issued to the respondents Nos. I and 2 (respondents Nos.2 and 3 herein) not to delete name of the petitioner from electoral list of the Ward No.6/1', Muzaffarpur Janubi. It is further prayed that the petitioner be allowed to contest the election from Ward No.23, District Council, Mianwali. Any other relief may also be awarded to the petitioner."
3. The learned Judges of the Division Bench, while admitting the petitioner to regular hearing, suspended the operation of the notification dated 2-6-1998, whereby Ghulam Rabbani petitioner herein, has been declared as successful candidate. This was subject to notice.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, in view of availability of efficacious remedy by filing an election petition as envisaged under section 24 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979.
5. Be that as it may, the impugned order was issued subject to notice. This Court does not ordinarily interfere with interim orders. The petitioner should, therefore, approach the High Court for redress of his grievance, in the first instance. When faced with this, the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that he has already moved an application for vacation of the stay order but the same has not yet been disposed of, though fixed for hearing on number of dates. If that is so, the petitioner may approach the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court for earlier disposal of the petition. If such an application is made, we have no doubt in our mind, that the High Court shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, during the vacation.
6. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. H.B.T./G-28-S Order accordingly.