1983 PLP 2440 (CLC)
JAVED ASLAM MALIK AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus RETURNING OFFICER-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 2440 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Gul Muhammad Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | JAVED ASLAM MALIK AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus RETURNING OFFICER-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 2440 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 2440 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Gul Muhammad Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 2440 (CLC) (JAVED ASLAM MALIK AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus RETURNING OFFICER-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mushtaq. Raj for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 9
Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17 (2)-Writ petition - Elaborate inquiry - Petitioners alleging Returning Officer misled them and ousted them from contesting elections-Allegations (if proved) requiring severe action against Returning Officer-Provision for such situation already made by "" Legislature aide S. 17 (2), Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI `' of 1979)-Held, question requires elaborate inquiry ,which High Court generally does not enter into and petitioners should have approached Election Authority.
Judgment & Decree
Art. 9
Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17 (2)-Writ petition - Elaborate inquiry - Petitioners alleging Returning Officer misled them and ousted them from contesting elections-Allegations (if proved) requiring severe action against Returning Officer-Provision for such situation already made by "" Legislature aide S. 17 (2), Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI `' of 1979)-Held, question requires elaborate inquiry ,which High Court generally does not enter into and petitioners should have approached Election Authority. Mushtaq. Raj for Petitioners. GUT. MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.-It is stated by the learned counsel that the Returning Officer misled the petitioner and other candidates, opposing respondent No. 3, so that they deposited a sum of Rs. 500 each as security, instead of Rs. 1,000 as required under rule
14. It is further stated that when the petitioner and others came to know that they had been misled they rushed back to deposit the remaining amount but the Returning officer had closed his office at 2.00 p. m., so as to oust them from contest ing the election.
2. It is admitted by the learned counsel that the Municipality in ques tion had been upgraded to attain the status of a corporation. It is further admitted that under the Rules in such a case a sum of Rs. 1.000 was to be deposited as security by each candidate. The question, therefore, is whether this Court should interfere in such a case.
3. Admittedly, this question would need an elaborate inquiry, which this Court generally would not enter into The allegations if proved may also require a severe action, against the Returning Officer. The Legislature on the other hand, has taken care of such a situation under section 17 (2). The petitioner, therefore, should have approached the Election Authority who is competent to interfere in such matters. This petition is, therefore. misplaced and shall stand disposed of as such. K.M.A. Petition dismissed.