1990 PLP 1174 (SCMR)
Ch. 1JAZ AHMAD SIDDIQUE‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF THEKEDAR and 4 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1174 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. 1JAZ AHMAD SIDDIQUE‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF THEKEDAR and 4 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1174 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1174 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1174 (SCMR) (Ch. 1JAZ AHMAD SIDDIQUE‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF THEKEDAR and 4 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. ‑
- S.M. Masud, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Murad Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 23rd October, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 7‑10‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No.4036 of 1989). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to Appeal‑‑‑Question raised in petition stood concluded by findings of fact against petitioner‑‑‑No justification to grant leave to appeal was found‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in this election matter; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner's Constitutional Petition. On respondent's election petition against the petitioner's declaration as successful candidate during the last Local Council Elections, the Election Tribunal set aside the election itself as a whole and directed that fresh election be held. This order of the Election Tribunal was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction; but without any success, therefore, he has sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel contended that there were two essential condition. required for the annulment of the election as a whole: (i), that the relevant rules should have been violated; and (ii), that the result of the election has been prejudiced by the violation of the rules. He frankly stated that there was violation of rules but vehemently contended that no evidence was led to show that the said violation of the rules affected in so far as the voting or its pattern was concerned. After hearing the learned counsel on the question raised which obviously stands concluded by findings of fact against the petitioner, no justification was found to rant learn to appeal. However, we ourselves also examined various aspects of the voting pattern at the three relevant polling stations including the disputed one and found that the violation of the rules materially affected the results of the election. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./1‑105/S Leave refused.