1992 PLP 1278 (CLC)
FAZLUR RAHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus REGISTRATIONOFFICER‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1278 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | FAZLUR RAHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus REGISTRATIONOFFICER‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Electoral Rolls Act (XXI of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1278 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Electoral Rolls Act (XXI of 1974)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1278 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1278 (CLC) (FAZLUR RAHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus REGISTRATIONOFFICER‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Iqbal for Petitioner.
- Maqbool Elahi Malik, A.‑G. Punjab for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th October, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑‑S. 11‑‑‑Electoral Rolls Rules, 1974, R.17‑‑‑Transfer of vote‑‑‑Application for‑‑‑Authority could not refuse to entertain and decide application of petitioner for transfer of his vote on ground that after 31st August, 1991, no such application could be entertained because process of annual revision has, been taken in hand‑‑‑Application for transfer of vote would be decided on merits without any delay. Akhtar Saleem v. Registration Officer etc. W.P. No. 7740/91 PLD 1992 Lab. 34 ref.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑‑S. 11‑‑‑Electoral Rolls Rules, 1974, R.17‑‑‑Transfer of vote‑‑‑Application for‑‑‑Authority could not refuse to entertain and decide application of petitioner for transfer of his vote on ground that after 31st August, 1991, no such application could be entertained because process of annual revision has, been taken in hand‑‑‑Application for transfer of vote would be decided on merits without any delay. Akhtar Saleem v. Registration Officer etc. W.P. No. 7740/91 PLD 1992 Lab. 34 ref. M. Iqbal for Petitioner. Maqbool Elahi Malik, A.‑G. Punjab for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th October, 1991. The application of the petitioner for transfer of vote was dismissed by the respondent on the ground that after 31st August, 1991, no such application can be entertained because the process of annual revision has been taken in hand. This Court in Akhtar Saleem v. Registration Officer etc. (W.P.No.. 7740/91 PLD 1992 Lab. 34) has already taken the view that the respondent cannot refuse to entertain and decide the application for transfer of vote on this ground. The refusal is, therefore, clearly without any lawful authority. In view of what has been said above, this petition is allowed and it is directed that if the petitioner files an application for transfer of vote, it shall be decided by the respondent without any delay on merits. No orders as to costs. H.B.T./F‑8/L Petition allowed.